Christ was Arminian?

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 </font>[/QUOTE]It says whoever is hungry can come. Whoever is thirsty can drink. It is reading a whole lot into that one Scripture to say that only certain people huger or thirst.

 

Great point!

The Calvinistic interpretation of this text goes against the natural understanding of the language and obvious intent of the author.

One becomes hungry for God and thirsty for God when they know him and understand his divine attibutes through His revelations of Himself. Some choose to drink and eat, others would rather feed their natural appetite. It is their choice and their responsiblity thus it is within their capasity.

 

No it doesn't. IT goes against your own mind and that is why you once again say things that are not true. Calvinists believe that whoever wants to can come, just like you believe. Accept it and move on.

 

That is your reading of the scripture not mine. I believe we are to proclaim the Gospel to all people and that those who hunger and thirst do so because of the Will of God and they are the 'whosoever' and they come. I never said 'certain' people.

Bro. Dallas

 

Brother Dallas,

You said, 'To say as Bro. Ray has that all men are given this hunger from God is again limiting God while glorifying man.'

Actually, an unbiased mind would respond by saying that a God who creates a hunger in every human soul, is one who is totally open to human beings and is unprejudiced against no one. The Christian God is opened armed to all human beings and He demonstrates His own magnanimity and glory.

A God who restricts His love, mercy and justice by creating hunger in an isolated few by His own choice, is a God Who has limited His own possibilities and has eclipsed His own glory. This kind of God is one who of His own will and accord has become vengeful and heartless against the less fortunate, non-elect.

 

That is your reading of the scripture not mine. I believe we are to proclaim the Gospel to all people and that those who hunger and thirst do so because of the Will of God and they are the 'whosoever' and they come. I never said 'certain' people.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]But such an interpretation comes from outside this verse - you only offered this verse. That is where the contention is. You bring your own theology into the interpretation of this. You must admit that if this were the only Scripture that existed, you would line up more with the Arminian interpretation than the Calvinist one - not that one is necessarily right, but if this were the only one, that is what we would both think.

 

It seems thet this whole concept of "moral inability" is the center of this confusion, because it does sound like a semantics game. You have mentioned it many times before, but I guess this "moral inability" does need some more explaining, and what the scriptural basis is.
From what I have seen, it is basically man's guilt from Adam that God has imputed to each individual, making him "just plain guilty because God said so" apart from any choice of his own (or the bad choice itself is "imputed" to him as well). So this "guilt" is "moral" and causes the "free" will to only reject God. But since this is "imputed" to him, it is that person's own fault and not God's, once again, simply because God said so, even though the person could not have done anything to not wind up in that position, and now can't do anything to get out of it. Being that there are many different Calvinists who put things many different ways, I hope this covers the basic idea I have gathered.
But still, since man is bound by time, and is ultimately powerless over all of this, it seems more consistent and simpler to me just to say that God has written a script, with the non-elect as preordained to destruction, rather than "they can choose if they want to", which in all practical matters [i.e. how it actually works out in "practice"] is not the case. But it does seem that this jargon seems to have been constructed so that moderate Calvinists can maintain particular election and the preterition of the non-elect, while deflecting criticism for/disclaiming the harder implications of God essentially damning helpless people for nothing they could have helped. But people see though this and are attacking the underlying implications, and that is why it seems they are being "obstinate" and you have to repeat the same things over and over to them. This you'll have to understand.
So as I had once said before, I think the real debate we are getting at here is the scripturality of "moral inability" and "imputation of guilt" (outside of the sin nature passed down).

 

Larry, you're on your high horse again. Be a real Pastor by getting down off of your horse named "Know it all" and begin speaking to me like one brother ought to speak to another. Thank you.

When have I ever claimed anything about how much I have studied? I have been very careful not to get into my personal credentials thank you very much. You must be confusing me with Ray.

Semantics! But if it would make you feel better go back to all my posts that say "total inability" and add in the word "moral" so that they read "total moral inability".

The arguments don't change one bit. I know its not physical ability, duh. You're avoiding the point by trying to switch the terms around when the different terms still afford the same exact arguments against them, which you HAVE NOT answered!

Once again you are playing a semantical game with me. You say man "can" but then you quote a verse that says "no one can" to prove your position. You contradict yourself.

By your argument you are saying man is physically able to believe but he is morally unable to believe. this is absurd! How does one phyiscally believe? He can show his faith by his works, but belief is an internal, moral decision.

So, you argue that man can but he won't, yet you use verses that say "can" not "will" to support your views. This is the contradiction.

 

You claim to be an ex-calvinist who had studied this in depth for nine years (I believe that was the number you gave). I am not trying to be a "know it all." I am simply amazed. That's all. I do not know everything, not by a long shot.

I can't see how this is semantics. It never has been in theological discussion before, to my knowledge. The issue is that man's inability does not mean he doesn't hear and understand. It means that sin has affected his moral ability so that he does not desire and cannot turn from it. THat is his sin nature. Your comments lead me to believe you think Calvinists are saying that the natural man is dumb and unable ot understand the sentences that communicate the message and that is simply not it.

I think my can had to do with mental ability, which is what you impugned. My "cannot" had to do with spiritual ability.

Again, absurd only because 1) you misunderstood what I said or 2) you don't understand the debate and the way terms are used. Physically able means his mind can comprehend and process the propositional truths. Morally unable means his nature turns him away from God and to sin.

No it's not, not to those who understand what is going on here in the debate. Perhaps I am alone here. I don't think so but perhaps I am. Perhaps I just read and run in different circles than you do. Where I come from, this is all pretty common knowledge. I am not trying put you down Bill. It is just that based on some things you have said in the past, I am surprised by the way that you are approaching some of this.

 

Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart.

 

Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart. </font>[/QUOTE]Scripture?

 

Psalm 51:12(NASB)
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.

John 3:6-8(NASB)
6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

 

Psalm 51:12(NASB)
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.</font>[/QUOTE]How does this answer "Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart." David has already been saved, and is asking for GOd to restore his joy - not his salvation.

ANd how does this answer, "Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart?" You're taking huge jumps in logic - if this is the best you can do, then there must not be any Scripture that answers the assertion

 

The writer in the that verse from Psalms was asking God to give him a willing spirit. The need is the same before or after regeneration.

Also, the verse in John 3 says the Spirit is the one that gives birth. Man doesn't give birth to himself physically, and neither does he do so spiritually.

Hey, Scott, let's quit tiptoeing around. Let's go mano a mano in a formal debate as has been talked about before - no rhetoric, no mumbo jumbo, no perjoratives. Are you up to it?

 

Larry,

We've been arguing about the ability of a lost man to understand the gospel so that they might believe and be saved. You quote 1 Cor 2:14 which says that natural man is unable understand spiritual things.

I've pointed to Romans 1 which clearly shows that lost man can clearly see and understand the attributes of God.

Your defense is to say that 1 Cor. is talking about the Spiritual ability of man verses Romans 1 which is talking about the physical ability? Do I have that right?

This still doesn't answer the question, "How does one recieve the Spirit so that they can have Spiritual discerment?"

The Spirit comes to those with faith as we see throughout the text. (Gal. 3 and Acts etc)

Your defense to that is that these verses are in reference to the Holy Spirit indwelling and sealing work as opposed to his prior regenerating work. Right?

Where do you get your support scripturally for this prior regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that comes before faith?

 

Brother Bill

You've summed up the case pretty well there I think.

Galatians 3:2 "Recieved ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the HEARING of faith"

Faith is generated by the HEARING of the WORD OF GOD.

James 1:18 "Of his own will begat He us with the WORD of truth"

1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD of God, which liveth and abideth forever"

To answer your question,

There are two agents used in regeneration.

1 The word of God.
2 The Spirit of God.

The only role that man is given in salvation is the duty to preach the Word of God. The reason so few peaople are being saved today is that there is not enough of the Word of God in modern sermons.

Man by preaching brings the Word to the sinners ear, the Holy Spirit takes over bringing the Word through the intellect to the heart. Conviction of sin results.

John 3:8 "...so is everyone that is born of the Spirit"

The ministry of the Holy Spirit is first to convict the sinner and then to convert him, to do the actual work of bringing him into the kingdom of God.

I believe, that where the Word of God is faithfully preached, there you will find the Holy Spirit, covicting and converting sinners.

How does one recieve the Holy Spirit?

You are wrong to say that the Spirit comes to those with faith.

Galatians 5:22 "But the FRUIT of the Spirit is love,joy...FAITH..."

1 Corinthians 12:9 " To another FAITH BY the same SPIRIT.

The Spirit with God the Father and God the Son, is the SOURCE of faith.

This brings us to:

Romans 10:17 "Faith cometh by HEARING and hearing by the WORD of God"

and we're back to where we started :

Galatians 3:2 "Recieved ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the HEARING of faith"

I hope you can now look at this verse differently.

To finalise :

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is eveyone that is born of the Spirit.

James 1:18
"Of his own will begat He us with the Word of truth."

John 1:13
"which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

All that man can do is to preach the Word of God and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.

I hope you followed the thread of what I was saying, I'm not very good at making myself clear and I'm sure Larry will do a much better job at answering your question but this is what I think anyway.

Your Brother in Christ,

Enda

 

Your "showing" was a poor one because you simply asserted it without proof, just as you did with your distorted view of God's acts in the calvinistic view. You did not show that God enables both. How can you say that God really cares when he stops short of doing everything possible to save someone? What kind of care is that?

I see your point now and yes I said that because Christ said that in John 6. All that the Father gives to me "will come" to me and I will not cast him out. Your beef is not with me; it is with Christ.

Again, your beef is with Christ; he is the one that said it. I simply repeated it.

Because I did not understand what you were trying to say. You were unclear to me. What I have said is what Scripture says so in accusing me, you are taking on some heavy company.

 

Enda,

I believe God gives a certain allotment of 'spiritual discernment' to all of the children of God. In other words we know right living from sin and we know if we 'grieve the Sprit.'

God's gifts to the church are many. 'There are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.' [I Cor. 12:4]

God reminds us that He divides His gifts according to His sovereign will and not so much because we seek certain gifts from Him. [I Cor. 12:11] I think you agree. Right?

 

Ray,

Yes I agree with your comment.

The point I was trying to make is that man does nothing to merit the recieving of the Spirit.

God Bless

Enda