The Question Arminians Can't Answer

Perhaps it was out of line - but face it, its the logical extension of Calvinism. ok HYPER Calvinism but its the same style of treatment we non-Calvinists are getting at your hands.

But back to the point at hand Larry - I disagree with you - no big shock there - about Romans 5

Sin entered the world through Adam to everyone
Grace entered through Christ to everyone

See the problem is you think that infants are born sinners and wont be saved when they die unless they are elect. This is because you have imputed the actual sin of Adam unto us; rather then its malodorous effects.

Ezekiel 18:14-20

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

We inherited a corrupted nature - We did not inherit sin - For by this statement we should not be put to death for Adam's mistake - except that his mistake marred creation and allowed for the putting to death of people for their sins

On another note - read it the passage man grace is more then sin - more then sin kills - grace makes alive

more then died in Adam - will live in Christ

Im arguing universalism in only that every has the chance to be saved - all they have to do is hand in their coupon for the free gift of salvation - and every man would be saved.

Cant you imagine a God so Just that He will punish each as we deserve - but so merciful that each punishment was put upon His Son?

His justice is not exceeded by His mercy nor vice versa - the only things both of those are "exceeded" by in that each represents an aspect of it - is Love. God throws a party when one sinner turns to Him - the angels rejoice - Does this not even suggest unto you how God longs for each and every soul?

Cant you understand?

Matthew

 

---------------------------------------
Response by Pastor Larry

To which Jesus said,

Jesus (this is not a signature, but rather a simple mistake. I started another thought but due to an interruption had to end abruptly and simply did not delete the name "Jesus".

I leave it now because Pastor Larry took offense in a later post because of it. Forgive me pastor, there is no possible way that I am identity confused.)

[ January 24, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

That is not what the passage says. It says that just as all in Adam were made sinners, so all in Christ will be made alive. You cannot simply change the passage.

I do not "think" that infants are born sinners. Scripture teaches that and so I believe it. Nor do I think that they will not be saved when they die unless they are elect. I believe that when babies die, they go to heaven. The teaching of Romans 5 is about sin, not about sin nature. There again is a place where you have glibly disregarded the text to support your own view. Read it again and look for the reference to "nature." It's not there.

Again, read the passage. You say "we should not be put to death for Adam's mistake." The Scripture says that through one man sin came into the world and death by sin. It says that by the disobedience of one, all died. That is clear. You have again ignored the clear teachign of the passage to support your own view.

The point of Romans 5 is modus operandi of salvation. We become righteous in the same way we become sinners. If you believe we become sinners by our acts, then you must believe we become rightoues by our acts because the passage teaches that both happen the same way.

This is clearly not true. All in Adam (which is all humanity) died. All in Christ (which is not all humanity) will be made alive.

[/qb]That's no universalism and while "coupon for the free gift" is a very poor way to describe it, I don't disagree. Everyone is called to repentance and the only thing that keeps man away is his own free choice to continue in his sin.

Yes, but I am afraid you don't ... Romans 5 is a fundamental passage that contradicts your position.

 

To which Jesus said,

Jesus</font>[/QUOTE]This appears to be irrelevant. I haven't contradicted what Jesus said in anyway. He is the source of Romans 5. It does not contradict.

And don't sign your posts with "Jesus." Use your name.

 

You see the direction of our logic as leading to salvation by merit. We don't see it that way, yet you keep insisting it is. That is the same as us insisting that your system leads inevitably to supralapsarian double predestination. We do correct it, but then what we say is just dismissed, and the Calvinistic interpretation of our position reiterated (hence, the "stumper" question.) Only difference, is we do not try to get out of it by insisting you don't understand our position. (This is also how Dave Hunt's entire book is dismissed, with hardly an argument as to what he actually says)
And don't forget, there are Calvinists who do confess what you are denying, so you cannot say we do not understand "Calvinist belief", because you do not even represent all of Calvinism. Yet you all agree on the main points we are challenging.

Are you kidding? The way Calvinists have been going around, pushing their beliefs, rubbing it's "hard" aspects in everyone's face, and we are not exposed to it? They even go infiltrating Churches, (there's a battle going in in the SBC no over this) and entering Bible classes (my wife and Nelson's wife said there was one disrupting the membership class at our church) almost like cultists or "full Gospel" teachers insisting that the church does not have all the truth or the complete Gospel without this other doctrine they are bringing. And at least one person who has posted here (possibly Nelson himself, IIRC) came from a Calvinist background. I'm sorry, but that argument is totally without basis, and you're making a general statement without knowledge-- just what you're accusing us of.

Part of it was in the quote. It could be from the person's own stubborn refusal to receive or act on what he had been given before, or in the case of Pharaoah and Israel, it was for an earthly purpose and does not say that it is to eternal damnation.

[ January 24, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Please see my post: Yelsew, posted January 23, 2003 06:13 PM

You may if you wish, since you have the power, delete the last part of that post beginning with, "Jesus...", along with your reference to it in your subsequent post.

 

Larry did you say this:

That is not what the passage says. It says that just as all in Adam were made sinners, so all in Christ will be made alive. You cannot simply change the passage.

Well heres the passage

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life

3956 pav pas pas

including all the forms of declension; TDNT-5:886,795; adj

AV-all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243

Its the same word the same all there is no modifying word on the all

444 anyrwpov anthropos anth?-ro-pos

from 435 and ops (the countenance, from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being; TDNT-1:364,59; n m

AV-man 552, not tr 4, misc 3; 559

1) a human being, whether male or female
1a) generically, to include all human individuals
1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
1b1) of animals and plants
1b2) of from God and Christ
1b3) of the angels
1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
1g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman

same goes for man

All is ALL whatever all you apply to one side in this verse YOU MUST apply to the other - otherwise YOU change the passage!

Romans 5:19 For as by one man?s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

The words are the same - lets even look at the aorist tense on the first made - which doesnt exist on the second which is a passive future instead

now im assuming you obviously know what aorist is
but perhaps I shouldnt

aorist in the way I understand it is a dependent action possibility - aorist depends on another action to bring the possibility into reality; and that that action can happen in past, present, and future.

Ill admit the standard view is that it also can be intrepreted as straight past tense - at least thats what the textbook says

but think what wild and wacky world it could be if we make that made be a dependent possibilty like it says it could be in Greek
it would even more clearly state that man doesnt inherit sin, but rather a sin nature

Sin - sin nature - Romans 6:1 - does anyone continue in a single act of sin, or do they engage in multiple sins, and wildly different ones too.

is the law a singular identity or is it composed of laws

The words are there Larry, Samuel- the justice is there - the mercy is there - and whats even better the grace of God is there even more

We should not be put to death for Adams sin because we are not responsible for Adams sin - the sin of the father is not imputed to the child - but the childs nature is influenced by the sin - Im trying here to get the concept of sin nature, because otherwise - I have the right to march down to where you live, and arrest you for your great-grandfathers lets say murder of his rival for your great-grandmothers hand. His sin is his, but that sin has influenced your entire families nature.

Ezekiel 18:14-20

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

READ THOSE VERSES AGAIN - now that your done READ THEM AGAIN - you havent let those words sink into your heart - sin is your own - your sin is not your childs

THAT is the proof of age of innocence - that is the proof of transference of sin nature - you cannot argue we are to held accountable for Adams sin if those verses say we are not!

 

Which words are the same? In Romans 5:19, it says many (polus), not all. And it says that by one man's disobedience (Adam's), many were made sinners.

How do you account for the difference?

[ January 24, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

Well done Sularis,

Pastor Larry, said,

It is relevent in that it is not the sins we do, but in whom we believe that our eternal destiny lies.

 

[It is unnecessary to quote the passage for me or to cite Greek. I am very familiar with both.

The teaching you have espoused here leads to universalism. If all without exception were made dead in Adam (which is unquestionably what the passage teaches), and all without exception were made alive in Christ, then you have universalism, plain and simple. That is heresy, plain and simple. I don't think you are a universalist. I think you are not thinking through what you are saying.

"All" does not always mean all without exception. It is clear that the "all" refer to "in Adam" and "in Christ."

I agree and that is why your position is untenable. The "all" is the same. It is modified by who the "all" has reference to. In the first half, "all in Adam" is parallel in though to the second half "all in Christ." The point of the passage is that we become righteous in the same way we become sinners. We became sinners in the first Adam; we become righteous in the second Adam.

Bad understanding. Aorist refers to a state of affairs.

Wild and wacky does not make good theology. Stick with the text. You will be better off.

Then neither should you be made alive by Christ's righteousness becuase you are not responsible for that. That is why your position cannot explain the text.

Adam's sin was imputed to all of his followers becuase he was our federal head.

It is not me who doesn't understand. Trust me -- I struggled with this passage for a long time trying to figure out the alls. One day it all came into focus. That is why I can see so clearly through your attempts. I used to make them. They didn't work then and they won't work now.

 

Larry - read that last part - there is a phrase you typed that is absolutely beautiful

Larry posted:

Then neither should you be made alive by Christ's righteousness becuase you are not responsible for that.

Wow, deep, Im not responsible for Christs righteousness - Thats TRUE!!! Hallelujah!

Law imputed the EFFECTS of Adams sin unto us and GRACE imputes the EFFECTS of Christs righteousness unto us - but something must cause that Grace to be applied - and that is FAITH!

I dont deny that there are some parts of Calvinism that are correct and that there may be parts of Arminianism that are correct as well.

Its more of a middle ground thing in this case...

See the thing is Larry I went from your view to what mine is now - of course I am younger so I dont know all your arguments

But there have been countless converts back and forth trying to find truth in one school of thought or the other when each one has a bit of the truth

 

I agree and that is why your position is untenable. The "all" is the same. It is modified by who the "all" has reference to. In the first half, "all in Adam" is parallel in though to the second half "all in Christ." The point of the passage is that we become righteous in the same way we become sinners. We became sinners in the first Adam; we become righteous in the second Adam.</font>[/QUOTE]This is not a math problem, there are no sides of the "equals sign" that must balance. It simply confirms that God is no respecter of man.

What applied to man before Christ, applies to man after Christ. Not just "the elect", but ALL men. As in Adam all men sin, No choice in the matter; in Christ all man can be made holy, but not all men will so choose! Before Christ, Atonement depended on each man's sin offering...slaughtered animal blood. After Christ, Atonement is strictly on the blood of one man, Jesus, and the confession of Jesus by each who will.

Before Christ, men like Abraham, though not sinless, were seen by God as Righteous because of their individual faith in God. Men after Christ, who place their individual faith in the Christ, while not sinless, are also seen by God as being righteous because of their Faith in His only Son.

God deals with our sin separately from our salvation though they are related. Once we are assured of Salvation we are commanded to, and must repent from sin and thus strive toward holiness. If we do not repent from our sin, God will give us back over to our sin. But if we confess and repent, He cleanses us from all unrighteousness, so that we are made spotless by the Blood of his Son, our savior. This applies to ALL men, not some mysterious "elect".

 

I assume you mean Calvinism?

If so Can you provide me with some facts about this so-called Battle? I'd like to join the Battle!

 

Try The Founders, (a Calvinist ministry within the SBC; might be simply founders.org, IIRC) for the Calvinist side, and Baptistfire.com for the Arminian side.

 

Sularis,

There was a lot of good and wise theology in your post.

Do you think more than a few Calvinists emphasize the doctrine of sovereignty more than the rest of His Divine attributes? {Justice, mercy, love, etc.}

 

You know, the 10 commandments start out with, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. ... For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Then God goes on to say SO many times things like, "When I do this (punish Israel, destroy Israel's enemies, etc.) then they shall know the "I am the LORD".

Maybe Arminians need to cut this stuff out of the Bible, since it emphasizes the sovereignty of the LORD too much, and not enough about His other attributes.

 

Thanx Ray, maybe one day I'll actually be able to afford to go to Bible college like I want to. But woe unto those who say because they have gone to Bible college they are wiser - for wisdom and knowledge come not from a Bible college but from above

As to your question - yes but because they mean well.

npet... me boyo

Here's a wee lil teaser for you...

Ill even answer it too

Why is God sovereign?

if that is a lil hard for you let's try a variation

What makes God sovereign?

well Im looking forward to your answer - Here's mine - His attributes

if you change His attributes you change who He is, and if His attributes differ one iota then you do not have the true Sovereign God.

 

Because he is God.