Christ was Arminian?

No, but the Holy Spirit can be stifled by man!

All men are CALLED to Salvation! Salvation is the place to which man can be called. It is up to man to make the journey to salvation by submitting himself to God through faith in Jesus. Faith cometh by hearing and Hearing by the Word of God.

You must understand that Spirit is impervious to mass. Spirit permeates mass passing though it without impedence or hinderence, therefore the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted by anything except that which is also spirit. The "will" of man is "of the spirit", therefore the will of man can resist the Holy Spirit. It is the Job of the Holy Spirit to convince the human spirit to be submissive to God. The Holy Spirit is a "gentleman" and does not force itself upon the human spirit, but rather patiently waits at the door to the human spirit knocking, so that when the human spirit "hears" the knocking, opens they door, the Holy Spirit then can enter by invitation and become effectual in transforming the human spirit from sinner to saint.

It helps to understand the principles of spiritual warfare too! By believing that the Holy Spirit forces Himself upon human spirit is simply inconsistant with the many examples of how God actually conducts spiritual warfare.

 

He can? Your saying he can, but he won't? I thought you believed that no one "can" come to Christ unless they were effectually called? Are you changing your position or just playing semantical games to avoid the debate? Honestly, I don't follow you here. Please explain.

The confusion is that you use passages like John 6 to support your view which says, "no one can" yet you have just said they can but they choose not to by their own free will. I'm confused. Are they able or not? If not, why do you use apply a verse that says, "no one can" in the manner Calvinists do?

 

This example only demonstrates the calvinist position.

A still-born child will not drink.

A spiritually dead sinner will not come to Christ.

A newly born child is drawn to the milk by the fact that it hungers and thirsts, it has no means of feeding itself. God has created that child and given it the desire to eat and drink. A child doesn't drink because it makes an intellectual decision to do so. It drinks because the life that is in it makes it drink.

A spiritually awakened sinner is similarly drawn (irresistably) to the word by means of Gods imputing to them a spiritual hunger and thirst.
This God given thirst can only be satisfied by coming to Christ.

 

Excellent post, Enda.

 

Scripture?

 

Assuming you are still speaking of infants here, drinking is not a conscious thought out action for an infant. Infants drink because their bodies tell them to drink. The presentation of the drinkable substance enables the drinking only to the point that there is something to drink. It doesn't matter to the infant what the substance is until the substance is in the mouth or on its way to the stomach.

Therefore at best this is a very poor choice of illustration for spiritual matters.

 

Read The Nature of the Child, by Jerome Kagan. Babies have much more volition than most give them credit for, including whether or not to drink... or have you never seen am imfamt who pouted and refused to drink his mother's milk at the same time as crying in hunger?

 

I must have missed that post. The one I saw repeated old, well answered, non-arguments.

He has an option. He can turn to Christ at any time he wants to. His own sin is the only thing keeping him fromt it. (Man I feel like broken record here. I have said this so many times. It is available so many places and some people just won't listen.)

I am faithful to Scripture, not Calvinism. God does sovereignly elect apart from human free will and then regenerates man so that he willingly responds. That is not the puppeteer that you would like him to be. That is the God of Scripture. If he did not do this, then no one would be saved.

I did so, and that is why I rejected the position you hold.

My view is actually very moderately Calvinistic.

 

Provided by that by "stifled' you mean resisted, thanks for repeating what I already said. If by that you mean something else, you will have to explain yourself.

Again, there is clearly an effectual call in Scripture that results in salvation. Not all receive that call. All do receive the general call. This is simple truth that you should know by now.

Not sure what "spirit" and "Mass" have to do with this discussion. They have no apparent relevance so I will just skip this paragraph.

I agree. I don't believe that the HOly Spirit forces himself on anyone. That is a distortion of the truth which I spoke earlier. STOP MAKING STUFF UP!!!

 

That your God sends people's children to hell and his only response to their grief is "I could have done something if I ahd chosen to but I decided not to." Your end is no different.

Where did I propose this??? YOu, like some others, are making stuff up. If a man opens, Christ will come in.

I never proposed this either. Did you really read my post??

Duh!! another fabulous statement of the obvious.

NOt if you try to use it to prove that Christ effectually draws all men without exception.

YOu have changed the metaphor. I was talking of a parent who fixes a dinner but and simply calls a child to come and eat but does not go up and bring that child down.

What relevance does this have?

The "Christ draws all men" solution that you have proposed has been shown by Scripture to be a faulty understanding. You have based your theology on something Christ did not say, where I have based mine on what Christ did say.

He protected thme?? What kind of God is that that can only protect people that well?? Did you really think through this argument at all before you wrote it out here? I sure hope not.

God does not force anyone's will. I wish we could dispense with that false notion. We do not believe that. He gives people a new will so that they respond.

 

For all you claimed to have studied, I can't imagine this would be confusing to you. Are you just being obstinate or have you really not studied as much as you claim?

Man's inability is a moral inability. His refusal is a willful refusal. It is not a semantic game or avoiding debate. It is the answer to the debate.

Again, if you understood the debate, this would not be a question. If you are that unfamiliar, just say so so we can proceed on a different basis. The nature of "inability" is what you misunderstand. YOu think that man is "unable" to believe like man is "unable" to lift a semi truck over his head with one hand. But the theological "inability" Is a far different animal. Please study this and then you can move your understanding forward, even if you reject it.

 

Pastor Larry,
I knew you would not discuss the truth of spirit, you simply do not understand it!

 

Scripture? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Revelation 22.17

I am not Enda, but here is where I would start the Scriptural search of the stance presented by the post you questioned.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Even so, it is good to be home

Bro. Dallas

 

Thanks Ken and Bro Dallas,

Scott,

What part of the argument don't you understand?

Its OK to use a little common sense now and again, but if you need scripture proof let me know where the problem lies.

Enda

 

'A spiritually awakened sinner is similarly drawn (irresistably) to the word BY MEANS OF GOD'S IMPUTING TO THEM A HUNGER AND THIRST.'

As far as I know God only imputes Christ's 'righteousness' to the sinner. Chapter and verse! Chapter and verse! It sounds good on a post but we have to have documentation.

God creates a spiritual hunger in the lives of every human being, otherwise He would not call all people to believe in Him. [John 3:16; Acts 17:30; I Timothy 2:4,6]

 

That doesn't address the question:

17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

 

I agree that all men do possess a spiritual hunger, but to say that the hunger comes from God to those who fill that hunger through black magic, witch-craft, voo-dooism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, etc. ad nauseum is ludicrous. God puts the hunger in man to come to Him through Christ and that man with the hunger created in him by God the Father will accept nothing less than God the Son (John 10).

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

It addresses fully the question you asked concerning enda's post on the hunger and drawing of man. If this scripture doesn't address the hunger nor the drawing then none of Scripture addresses that question. To say as Bro. Ray has that all men are given this hunger from God is again limiting God while glorifying man.

Bro. Dallas