Gal 2:20

NO! this is not true. what is true is that the natural man cannot understand the things of God. that is why the Holy Spirit will convict the unbelievers. upon conviction, and thus understanding, the one convicted may then choose for or against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, just as Adam had the option to choose for or against God in his time, and just as believers of our time may choose for or against the conviction of the Holy Spirit when tempted to sin.

 

(1 Cor 7:19 NIV) Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

(Gal 5:6 NIV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

While 'works of the law' (Rom.3) cannot be linked to faith (in regard to the principle of obligation found in Rom.4), love and obedience seem to be...therefore a 'work'. In fact, James says himself...

(James 2:22 RSV)
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

So, if works are, for example, love and obedience, (all by grace, of course)and works COMPLETE our faith...is not a faith ultimately a 'work'?

In Hebrews, in the "hall of faith", those listed in this great Hall are those who 'trusted in God', yes, but actually acted on (i.e. 'worked') it in some meaningful and sacrificial way.

(Rom 2:13 NIV) For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

It just seems to me that 'faith' being merely a 'trusting' limits the meaning of the word, which seems to be a combination of trust/reliance/obedience (holiness). Am I wrong???

 

P.S. And what about 'repentance'which is required for salvation. Is that not a decision of the will...a deliberate choice to move in God's direction???

 

Did Jacob repent and believe before God broke his thigh ?
Did Paul repent and believe before Jesus first threw him to the ground on the Damascus road ?
Can the Ethiopian change the color of his skin ?
Did not God Himself declare Job righteous, a man who escheweth evil ?
Did not God reprove Job's friends for thinking that Job's suffering was because of some hidden sin he had ?
Didn't Job himself finally give in and question the justness of his suffering, and didn't God Himself in his questions to Job assert His sovereignty on who suffers and who doesn't when He wants to ?
Can dead men repent ? Or must they be brought to life first, and their dead eyes given vision first, before they can repent. Isn't that what Ephesians 2:4-5 is saying when Paul wrote

.

No man can come to Christ except the Father first draw him. The Savior Himself declared this, how dare we contradict the principle which Immanuel Himself clearly laid down because we think that we are basically good creatures who will choose the good things of God over evil ? That is humanist thinking, totally in line with the principles of secular humanism.
Totally opposed to what God declared man to be from and after the first Adam.
Yes, God requires repentance, and faith, and because even His very elect will not come to Him of their own accord, even the ability to fulfill these requirements is a gift that He gives.

 

Eric, thank you for your testimony. Isn't it funny how everyone ignored you? I know that it can be rough at times when we still have to live in the flesh but true life is not there. Time helps! The more time I have been with the Lord the more I have learned to lean on Him for everything and keep my eyes on Him and totally trust Him with every detail of my life. As I get older and I see the world more and more for what it is, the less I am interested in it and the more my heart is looking up. It has been a process with me, too, but a lovely one now I can look back on so much of it. So I want to encourage you. God is totally faithful and He won't let you go. You really ARE predestined to be changed into the image of Christ, so hold on! And God bless you.

I have noticed here that no matter how many times I have tried to say weird things like Christ did everything and giving up is not a work and that God actually DID love the WORLD and that Christ's work was sufficient for all, etc. etc., it's like talking to a wall.

But the one thing that has firmed up in my mind, bit by bit, is that Calvinism, under the guise of giving God all the glory, has actually boxed Him up into something they can understand, and that is taking away a lot of the glory of who He really is. I am convinced now that the sovereignty of God is MUCH bigger and "more" than they can comprehend. He is big enough to allow us to choose or reject and that provides us with the only possibility of, through Him after salvation, being able to fulfill the commandment to love Him and others. Love is not love if there is not choice. God could choose whether or not to love us and He has given us the same option where He is concerned. I guess one fairly graphic way of saying it is that He is not either forcing or raping His bride!

I remain amazed at how much of the Bible must be ignored to allow a person to cling to Calvinism.

[ May 23, 2002, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

at least you admit your statements are weird in your assertion that God wants to save all but His power is dammed up by man's willingness to be saved.
As for the "talking to a wall" thing, the feeling is mutual.

If Eric B's testimony did not elicit any response I think it is because the glory belongs to God.
In my own wild days, when a testy spirit was in me, I had gone drinking with some friends who started boasting how tough they were.
One of these guys showed me his scars and boasted how he'd been stabbed several times. We were a gang, and I was the only one with no scars to boast of at that time.
Being the youngest and the greenest, this guy asked if I was scared of him, obviously to make sure I knew where I was in the gang's totem pole.
My answer was sarcastic, but I meant it: I said, "no, I'm scared of the guys who stabbed you."
When we listen to, or read about, a first-person account of conversion, we focus on the converter, not the converted.

Originally quoted by Helen:

On the contrary. Calvinists, and those who believe in the doctrine of God's Sovereign Electing Grace, do not put God in a box. We dwell on what God says about Himself, about man, and about man's inability to save Himself, and about how He alone is the Savior and Source of all good things.
We do not question His decision to save some, and not all, we do not doubt His declaration that none can come to His Son except those whom He draws to His Son, we do not put a counter-explanation to His declaration that man is totally corrupted spiritually and enslaved to sin, and He is the only One who can free man, and He bestows mercy on whom He will.
We do not put Him in a box.
You Arminians are the ones who put Him in a box, making Him obligated to His attributes and character, thinking yourselves to be more merciful and just than Him who is the source of all mercy and justice. No offense to Catholics, the best description is that you Arminians have become "more papist than the Pope".
You tell God that because He said He is merciful and just, then require Him to be merciful and just to everyone, notwithstanding that from the lips of His Son, who is His express image, came the warning that "not all who say unto me Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in thy Name, and in thy Name cast out demons" will be answered with the words,
"depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you"

Originally quoted by Helen

There are certain things which are too big for "us" to comprehend, such as how God can create order out of chaos simply by speaking, or how He divides the waters that His people may safely cross and those who are not His people may not cross, or How he could send His Son to redeem those who are otherwise, by choice and deed, unredeemable, or how He can stop the sun and extend the whole day further than can be imagined so that His warriors can win the battle.
But He has given enough scriptures on what His sovereignty is all about, and how He exercises and interprets His sovereignty.
"We" do not add to that sovereignty, nor do "we" dare to subtract from it.
On the other hand, "you" dare expand that sovereignty extra-scripturally to where God does not take it,
in order to line God's sovereignty with your humanistic concepts of God's goodness and man's worthiness.
"You" interpret God's business in line with man's interpretation of heroism, and courage, and greatness, and bigness of heart.
Man did have a choice, thru Adam, and Adam blew it, big and wide.
The Second Adam also had a choice, to obey unto death, or to cry out to His Father and be rescued, and leave everybody to their just end and punishment,
and He made a choice, "He set His face to go to Jerusalem". His choice was to obey. Even unto death. In Him, the elect have exercised "their" choice.
The posterity of the First Adam are born with the curse of sin in them, and a corrupted nature with the inability to choose God on their own. In him, those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of life have exercised their choice.

Originally quoted by Helen:

Which is why John is able to say "God is love", because he knew that if God had not shown His love to them, he and those of his time who were of the seed of the First Adam, would never have a hope, and so "we love Him, because He first loved us".

Originally quoted by Helen:

False.
"No man can come to me, except the Father draw him"...said Jesus (where is man's choice ?);
"And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me"....said Jesus.(where is man's choice ?}
"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion"...said JEHOVAH. (where is man's choice ?)
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy...
said the Apostle Paul. (wnere is man's choice ?)_
For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."...wrote Paul again.(Where was Pharaoh's choice ?)
What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction...(where is the choice for these vessels of wrath that they not be fitted unto destruction?)_
and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory...(were the vessels of mercy able to exercise their choice before their birth ?)

Originally quoted by Helen:

He surely will not. The Father had chosen from the beginning who the Bride will be composed of, and had given this bride not only His Son as His gift to her, and her as His gift to His Son, He had also given her the gift of faith ! Therefore, the Son will not be forcing Himself on her, neither is she forced on the Son ! And the Son had washed His bride's garment with His own blood, removing every nauseating spot of sin in it, and able to present her to Himself a chaste, and spotless bride.
How pathetic it is to liken a heavenly courtship and betrothal to that of a corrupt earthly one.

Originally quoted by Helen:

I remain amazed at how much of scriptures is twisted and bent every which way in order for a person to justify clinging to the humanist principles of Arminianism.

 

Helen...

"But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus..." It is not of yourself, O self-sufficient one.

"Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest, and causest to approach unto Thee."

If you don't believe this, you don't truly believe anything of God's Word, O vain boaster.

Everyone has a "testimony", "Christians" of every stripe, Bhuddist, Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Spiritualist. Christian Scientists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Branch Davidians, New Agers, etc., etc. Like noses, everyone has one.

I don't place very much importance on "testimonials". I have heard too many emotional, sentimental stories, not supported by objective, scriptural truth. Especially those which are primarily self-glorifying, but not much to the glory of God.

I am much more impressed by stories of "how God found me", rather than "how I found God".

connieman (with my most appealing and inviting evangelistic smile)

[ May 23, 2002, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

There's no need to be evangelistic if no one has a choice.

And there is no need for that 'smile' when you have just called me vain and self-sufficient.

Could you show me where I boasted about anything? Where I have appeared self-sufficient? Where I was vain?

Just because Christ gave me the option of accepting or refusing Him does not mean I did anything to deserve it or anything to maintain my salvation. I am very aware that He is all in all and that my life is hid with Him in God.

And as far as testimonies go, I find myself very encouraged by what I hear from others. And I then am able to encourage them more. Many times a new Christian especially can feel somewhat alone in this world. Seeing what others have gone through can be a tremendous encouragement.

Or do you think that building up the body is a work we should also shy away from? If not, you might try to start by not insulting people you disagree with.

 

Why do you continue in this?? You have been repeatedly shown this to be a blatant misrepresentation about Scriptural teaching. You have been shown from Scripture why we Calvinists believe what we do about evangelism. We have answered every passage about evangelism that you have put forth. We assert the need to be evangelistic. We have asserted that the sovereignty of God in salvation (Calvinism) is indeed the only thing that gives hope to evangelism. Yet you would rather continue in your misguided thoughts about Calvinism rather than believe what we are telling you.

From here on out, since this issue of the necessity of evangelism has been thoroughy addressed from both sides, there will be a moratorium on such references. Find something else to say.

 

Larry, the reason to evangelize is because people DO have a choice. "Choose this day whom you will serve."

Empty words?

I think not.

Hebrews 3:7: "So, as the Holy Spirit says:
'Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts...'"

People have a choice. There is no other reason the writer to the Hebrews would have repeated that three times in chapters 3 and 4 if they didn't.

[ May 23, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Of course people have a choice.

It is a misrepresentation of Calvinism to say that Calvinists don't believe that poeple have a choice. People make REAL choices for which they are fully responsible. Every single person chooses the thing that seems best to them.

 

the temporal death of Christ, (or any other faithful servant), for a definite ternal purpose is vastly different from eternal death. This is what people don't realize. Hell is not some good thing, as if we should celebrate others going there (just as long as it's not me!--i.e. "...and it pleased God to redeem some and not all from that slavery... It is definitely good news, both in this side of eternity, and on the other side, that causes the redeemed sinner to break out in praise and thanksgiving to Him to whom alone belongs such praise and thanksgiving." )

The latter statement is not what God said about Himself, but is people's own limited deductions read into various scriptures.

So His sovereignty means that He contradicts His own attributes and character? I don't believe people could actually insist something like this, and then claim to be believing what God says about Himself, not adding to it, and that it's the other side that is "lining it up to fit their concepts". But that seems to be the only way out of it, so sacrifice God's entire coherance in the name of "sovereignty".

Where did you get this from? Nobody here said anything about their own justice or mercy or that man is a good creature. The insistence on using such unfounded ridiculous staw men is proof that the premise being defended must ultimately be weak.

Noone's telling God anything, we're just reading what He says in the Bible, (and without splitting Him into two contrary beings). This is no proof of reprobation. So people falsely used His name but "[did not] the will of My Father in Heaven".
It says nothing about Him decreeing them that way. In the context, His "not knowing them" stems from their own sin, not His passing them over (because that would be His action).

In the context, John 6 is talking about those being called out of Israel (see next quote) into Christ's following, now that the Spirit was being poured out on all flesh.

Once again, the context is talking about Israel. They were the "vessels" God raised (Isaiah 25), and now hardens to open up the Gospel to the new vessels, (all the "nations", including those who would be the beginning of Christ's Church, as John 6, above, teaches). This passage has nothing to do with the reprobation individuals to Hell, which is not even the point. Yet people persist in using this as the ultimate answer.

 

Helen...first, evangelization is the process of "proclaiming" the Gospel, not "selling" the Gospel. The Gospel is to be announced to every creature fpr either of two purposes, for the "calling" by God of the elect to salvation, or the confirmation of the damnation of the non-elect. in their natural unbelief. This so that they will continue to be "without excuse."

How do you boast? By claiming that you are going to heaven because you have believed the truth, of your own free-will choice. You say that your eternal destiny is determined by your own action, and not by the work of God in Christ.

Yes, the natural man is always confronted with a "choice", and he ALWAYS says "No", unless he has been reborn of God. "There is none that understandeth, and seek God. They are all turned aside; they have all together become filthy".

Now, I did not say this; these are the words of God by the prophet David. The natural man, because of his pride toward God, WILL NOT believe God. This is why Jesus said every man must be born again, or he cannot see the kingdom of God.

A person is not saved by believing the Gospel, but if he believes the Gospel, he shows that he has been saved, or born of God. Only those who have been born of God truly believe God's Gospel of Grace.

I do owe you an apology for being so sarcastic and insulting toward you in your unbelief. I forget that I did not believe the true Gospel when I was a child and young man. I was taught only a false one. It was only afterwards, by the grace of God, that I learned how, why, and by Whom I had been saved from the wrath of God. Thank God!

But, if you don't believe the truth, you just don't believe the truth, only because God has not shown it to you, yet. But, you are not stupid, only still spiritually blind. May the Lord enable me to remember this always.

connieman

[ May 23, 2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

You have believed a lie when someone told you that Arminian Christians believe that there is good in all sinners. Perpetuating misunderstanding does not help Christians understand our two or more points of view. I can tell when people have not had a broad and thorough presentation of both views of theology. There is not one cintilla of goodness in sinners. That is why Christ died to take away, not their goodness, but their sins.

On the other hand, because of His sovereignty sinners still have a conscience, a mind, a will and it is within this venue that God approaches even the most hardened of sinners. God does not rejoice in their 'goodness' but He never totally destroyed the Image of God in humans as a result of the Fall in the Garden. Why are sinners not totally depraved? If they were they could not listen and respond to His gracious call in the Gospel. There could be no appeal to His offer of truth if we had no conscience to understand that God will not accept sinners in their defiled state. Sinners do comprehend that He hates all wickedness and that without His glorious grace they are forever lost. The beginnings of this understanding is when God begins to minister to their mind and inner being.

 

Df B...

Only God can change the Ethiopian's skin, or the leopard's spots, or the sinner's heart, as He will.[/b[

Without a heart change, no one truly comes to God.

connieman

 

EricB writes:

Whoever said hell is a good thing, and we ought to celebrate others going there. Not me. Unfortunately, I don't call the shots, neither does anyone else, including you. God is the One who decides who He takes out of that road. If it pleased Him to number somebody in those He saves out of condemnation, then that somebody had better be thankful for it because he sure didn't deserve that mercy, instead of tugging at God's sleeve like a spoiled child, and begging that He also save everybody else.

EricB also said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You Arminians are the ones who put Him in a box, making Him obligated to His attributes and character
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God's sovereignty means that He live up to His attribute and character in a manner satisfactory to Himself, not to man. His law was broken, man, in Adam, sold himself out to the devil for a slave, choosing to obey the devil instead of God, after having been warned fairly of the consequences of disobedience.
All men, not some, are in just condemnation, and if He chooses to be merciful to some and not all, who is to question him ?
And He did satisfy His requirement, salvation is not free. Somebody paid the price, and it was His only begotten Son.

EricB also wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thinking yourselves to be more merciful and just than Him who is the source of all mercy and justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, yeah ? Well, if Jesus says no man can come to me except the Father draw him, and somebody says, of course, they can come to God because they have the free will to do so,
isn't that contradicting God Himself ?

By the way, EricB, I have visited your website, and it is interesting.
What I want to know is what do you believe about the triune God, considering we have your testimony.

 

i do not agree to all points of the TULIP theology. but i really do not know what doctrine does the Arminians have.

now i have this question for the Calvinist/Electionist. but this is not to prove you are wrong or something like it. this is simply out of curiousity for me to understand more of what you teach. besides, i think most of the belief have already been stated, given the so many arguments (chalengingly personal or simply right to the topic) posted at so many threads.

now, as you believe that God sovereignly chose whom He will save, and thus who Jesus Christ died for, what then has been God's basis on choosing those individual souls? this is not a question against God, but rather a question of what do you say that the Bible says about this question. certainly it is not the faith that God has forknown that those individuals will apply, right? or is the Bible quiet about this? did not God specify His basis? yes it is out of His sovereignty that He chooses, but then application of His sovereignty must not contradict His ritheousness and justice, and the rest of his attributes.

 

In a nutshell, this is what the Arminians preach and believe:

That God, in His foreknowledge, looked down thru time, and saw all the men and women who will respond to the gospel message, and based on this response, predestinated them to the adoption of Christ and thus unto salvation.

Now:

If God foresaw their response, and saved them because He knew they will repent on that time, therefore it follows that God foresaw something good in them, and that is, that they have a heart for the gospel, and therefore, a love for God.
These men do not fall under the category of Romans 3:10-18 because they have not really gone astray, they have some sort of fear of God, and they will do good because they will choose Christ on that given day God foresaw.If so, then it is not of grace that they have been saved, but of merit. Or, if you will, works.
The Arminians can froth in their mouth all they want and deny that they do not believe thus but when placed under the scrutiny of the Scriptures that is what their beliefs ball up into.
This is why in all my arguments I have insisted that Arminians believe there is an iota of good in man which is contrary to what the Bible says about man.

God had no basis at all to choose those He chose, because none are righteous, none seek after God, all have sinned and come short of His righteousness, including these elect.

All are corrupt, all are subject to and slaves of sin,all are under condemnation, and left on their own, none will choose God in His pure form and essence and holiness and will always want Him to be conformed to what their ideas are of Him, of how they think the Bible pictures Him, which is why we have all these religions and idolatrous worship and cults around us.

If you look for any basis at all, given the fact that all have sinned, all are under condemnation, and yet God, from before the foundation of the world,chooses to pluck some of these dirty,
rotten sinners, out of condemnation despite His knowledge of their corruption, and sends His Son to redeem them with His blood for His own, then you come down to only two words : grace and mercy(John 3:15-18; Rom.8:28-33; Eph.2:8-9;
Titus 3:5)

Yes, Aki. There is a basis for which God chooses those who will enter His rest. The Law pictures God's requirements, do you know of any mortal man able to keep all the points and requirements of the Law ? Hear David in Psalms 3-4:
"Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD ? or who shall stand in his holy place ?
He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn
deceitfully."
Do you think anyone, elect or not, qualifies ?
And God never violated His own precepts and law and requirements.
He extracted punishment for sin.
Jesus Christ paid that penalty, took that punishment, shed His blood, got spat on, beat on, took the flogging and had His very skin torn.
Right there is the difference between the Ruler of the Universe, Holy and Righteous, and the rulers of this planet.
The former chose to be merciful to many, without bypassing the satisfaction of His laws.
The latter pardons without anyone else suffering the retribution of the crimes of those they pardon.

There are a lot more differences between the Arminian theology and that of the Electionist Theology (I'm sorry, but I am not Calvinist}, but let us limit the answers to your immediate questions.

 

The reason why Helen and others have a problem understanding evangelism and choice is because they do not understand the biblical teaching on the nature of man. Man has a free will. It is a free will that operates just like God's free will does. Man is free to do anything consistent with his nature. When he only has an old nature, he can only sin. He makes his choices and every time that choice is to sin because that is what he freely wants to do. When God regenerates, he gives a new nature than allows man to make a different choice. We evangelize because God has called us to and we desire to be obedient. We evangelize because God has chosen the preaching of the message to save those who are elect (Acts 13:48; 2 Tim 2:10).

But those who fail to understand the nature of man will inevitably not understand the issues of soteriology.

When Nicodemus told Christ he didn't understand what he was talking, Jesus did not attribute it a poor explanation, to a lack of evangelism (in fact he said Nicodemus should have known this), to the lack of a free will, etc. He attributed it to a lack of the new birth. It is only through the new birth that an understanding of sin and salvation come.