A Summary of the Cal/Arm debate as I see it...

[Skandelon]

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

It's a prominent theme presented to us throughout Romans; God is no respector of persons, one way or the other.

Exactly, I'm glad we are in agreement.

Verse 24 perfectly supports my view that the lump of clay represents Israel and that he is expounding the idea that the vessels made for glory extend to the Gentiles as well. He has bound all men over to disobedience so as to have mercy on them all, both Jew and Gentile.

 

[kyredneck]

Actually Skandelon, I'm hesitant to assign eternal consequences to many passages that others seem hasty to. I believe God has hardened many of His children and turned them [back] over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, but their spirit is still yet saved in the day of the Lord.

I've no doubt that there were many of His redeemed, born from above children that perished in the destruction that befell 'that generation'. I've no doubt that there were many of His redeemed, born from above children that perished in the destruction of the great flood.

But as I've pointed out on other posts, the 'Song of Moses', which was prophetic of 'that generation' that you're referring to, clearly states that they were not His children.

 

[kyredneck]

Exactly, I'm glad we are in agreement.

Verse 24 perfectly supports my view that the lump of clay represents Israel and that he is expounding the idea that the vessels made for glory extend to the Gentiles as well. He has bound all men over to disobedience so as to have mercy on them all, both Jew and Gentile.

Yes, I'm glad we're in agreement that He made known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He had predestined before the foundation of the world unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, I'm glad we're in agreement that He made known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He had predestined before the foundation of the world unto glory, even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles.

Yep, we are.

He made know the riches of His glory upon those special chosen vessels of Israel (such as Paul and the apostles), which he had predestined for this noble purpose before the foundation of the world unto his glory being preached throughout the earth, even us, who he also called (again apostles from Israel), but not only us the Jews, but also those he is grafting in, those he is calling to repentance, those who "will listen" (acts 28:28), the Gentiles.

Linguistic scholar and highly respected commentator, Adam Clarke, supports this view:

1. To show his wrath, and to make his power known. And also, 2. That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.

"Which he had afore prepared unto glory" - The Jews were fitted for destruction long before; but the fittest time to destroy them was after he had prepared the believing Gentiles unto glory. For the rod of the Messiah's strength was to be sent out of Zion, Psalm cx. 2. The Jewish nation was to supply the first preachers of the Gospel, and from Jerusalem their sound was to go forth into all the earth. Therefore the Jewish state, notwithstanding its corruptions, was to be preserved till the Messiah came, and even till the Gospel preached by the apostles had taken deep root in the Gentile world. Another thing which rendered the time when the Jewish polity was overthrown the most proper, was this, because then the immediate occasion of it was the extensiveness of the Divine grace. They would not have the Gentiles admitted into the Church of God; but contradicted, and blasphemed, and rejected the Lord that bought them: thus, then, the extensiveness of the Divine grace occasioned their infidelity, ver. 33; x. 3; xi. 11, 12, 15, 28, 30. Thus the Jews were diminished by that abundance of grace which has enriched the Gentiles. And so the grace of God was illustrated; or, so God made known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy-the apostles and primitive believers among the Jews, and the Gentile world, which received the Gospel by the preaching of the apostles and their successors. -Adam Clarke

 

[Skandelon]

Allan,

As I said, I'm not with my books, but just a quick search online did turn up this quote from Clarke that illustrates my point well. This is his commentary on the 1 Cor 2 passage:

"But in demonstration of the Spirit" - apodeixei, In the manifestation; or, as two ancient MSS. have it, apokaluyei, in the revelation of the Spirit. The doctrine that he preached was revealed by the Spirit: that it was a revelation of the Spirit, the holiness, purity, and usefulness of the doctrine rendered manifest: and the overthrow of idolatry, and the conversion of souls, by the power and energy of the preaching, were the demonstration that all was Divine. -Adam Clarke

Notice how he equate the demonstrations of the HS with the preaching of the gospel? The doctrine he preached WAS "a revelation of the Spirit." That is the point I'm attempting to make here. It's not so much that I'm attempting to discredit your point regarding the need of a demonstration of the HS, just point out that the preaching of God's word IS a demonstration of the HS and thus the chosen "normative" means by which He brings men understanding.

Does that make sense? Again, I'll look for some other sources when I get to the house....

 

[Skandelon]

Here is some more from Clarke in that same chapter that also supports this point:

Verse 7. "The wisdom of God in a mystery" - The GOSPEL of Jesus Christ, which had been comparatively hidden from the foundation of the world, (the settling of the Jewish economy, as this phrase often means,) though appointed from the beginning to be revealed in the fullness of time. For, though this Gospel was, in a certain sense, announced by the prophets, and prefigured by the law, yet it is certain that even the most intelligent of the Jewish rulers, their doctors, scribes, and Pharisees, had no adequate knowledge of it; therefore it was still a mystery to them and others, till it was so gloriously revealed by the preaching of the apostles.

See, the mystery is revealed through the glorious preaching of those inspired, the apostles of Christ. Much of the NT is being written in a world that hasn't heard this "glorious revelation" thus it remains a mystery to most...and until they hear the glorious HS wrought revelation which makes this mystery manifest it remains mysterious....more to come...

 

[Skandelon]

Allan,

Not trying to sand bag you here, but a passage you should consider in this discussion is Titus 2:


Titus 2:
so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age…

Notice how he equates the grace of God that appears to all men with the "TEACHINGS?" He wants the teachings to be seen as "attractive" because that is God's gracious means to make appeal to the all men to be reconciled to God.

I've not seen it laid out this way, but I just came across this Comparison between Protestants table:

This table summarizes the classical views of three different Protestant beliefs.
Lutheranism: Conversion Through the means of grace, resistible
Calvinism: Through Grace alone, irresistible
Arminianism: By Grace through Faith and is resistible

So, according to this particular (and admittedly incomplete table), my view might fall more in line with the more "Lutheran" brand of non-Calvinism, but this does show that "my" view is not without historical/scholarly/orthodox backing...which is what I think you were seeking.

I've got some more quotes, but I'll stop there for now and let you have time to reply...

 

[Skandelon]

Allan,

I know I said that's all I would give you to view, but there is a great article that describes the differences in Calvinism and Lutheranism as it relates to this point of our contention:

...[Calvinism and Lutheranism] see the preaching of the gospel as a means of grace by which God offers salvation.

Calvinists distinguish between a resistible, outward call to salvation given to all who hear the free offer of the gospel, and an efficacious, inward work by the Holy Spirit. Every person is unwilling to follow the outward call to salvation until, as the Westminster Confession puts it, "being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it." Once inwardly renewed, every person freely follows God and his ways as "not only the obligatory but the preferable good," and hence that special renewing grace is always effective.

Contrary to the Calvinist position, Lutherans hold that whenever the Holy Spirit works outwardly through the Word and sacraments, he always acts inwardly through them as well. Unlike Calvinists, Lutherans believe the Holy Spirit always works efficaciously. The Word heard by those that resist it is just as efficacious as the Word preached to those that convert. The Formula of Concord teaches that when humans reject the calling of the Holy Spirit, it is not a result of the Word being less efficacious. Instead, contempt for the means of grace is the result of "the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and resists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through the Word..."

Lutherans are certain that the work of the Holy Spirit does not occur merely alongside the means of grace to regenerate, but instead is an integral part of them, always working through them wherever they are found. Lutherans teach that the Holy Spirit limits himself to working only through the means of grace and nowhere else. so that those who reject the means of grace are simultaneously resisting and rejecting the Holy Spirit and the grace he brings.

I think that makes my point well, but you are right that this particular distinction is not "Arminian" per say, but more "non-Calvinistic" but also not purely "Lutheran" either...just "lutheran" in this one respect...

Thoughts?

 

[Calv1]

Allan,

I know I said that's all I would give you to view, but there is a great article that describes the differences in Calvinism and Lutheranism as it relates to this point of our contention:



I think that makes my point well, but you are right that this particular distinction is not "Arminian" per say, but more "non-Calvinistic" but also not purely "Lutheran" either...just "lutheran" in this one respect...

Thoughts?

I've never met anyone who picks and chooses his facts like our moderator, he'll probably cut me off for I'm his only threat on truth.

If one is Calvinsist, or Reformed, he was try to grind you into "Hyper".

I've never seen anyone trying to "Accuse" so much as the bible says we have a "Accuser"

I will ask our moderator, my "Accuser", let's DEBATE, you and I. You pick the topic, hopefull synergism verses monergism. Your man centered religion versus the bible's God centered religion.

I'm not going to, by my friends advice, answer your personal questions, but rather challenge you to debate, in front of everyone to see the truth, if you are right, and standing before the Lord, then you should have no fear.

Likewise, if you are unsure, don't dig in, that is sin, just don't take the challenge.

 

[kyredneck]

...He made know the riches of His glory upon those special chosen vessels of Israel (such as Paul and the apostles), which he had predestined for this noble purpose before the foundation of the world unto his glory being preached throughout the earth, even us, who he also called (again apostles from Israel), but not only us the Jews, but also those he is grafting in, those he is calling to repentance, those who "will listen" (acts 28:28), the Gentiles.....

“..those who "will listen"...” e.g. “...as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” [Acts 13:48]

Those who believe are 'afore prepared' or predestined to do just that, believe. One can safely attach that 'rider' or 'modifier' to all passages referring to people who believe the gospel. Example [Acts 9:42]:

And it became known throughout all Joppa: and many believed on the Lord, 'as many as were ordained to eternal life'.

.....See, the mystery is revealed through the glorious preaching of those inspired, the apostles of Christ. Much of the NT is being written in a world that hasn't heard this "glorious revelation" thus it remains a mystery to most...and until they hear the glorious HS wrought revelation which makes this mystery manifest it remains mysterious....more to come...

We're provided with another 'rider' or 'qualifier' that can be safely attached to passages concerning those that 'receive' or 'accept' Christ:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

This threefold denial of any involvement of the flesh with the birth from above can attached to passages such as Jn 10:42:

And many believed on him there, 'who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.'

The 'HS' doesn't 'hitchhike a ride' on the preaching of the gospel. The 'HS' is not restrained in any way to any church or written word or preacher. The 'HS' blows where He wills and regenerates whomever He wills whenever He wills. Those who believe the preaching have already been born, 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.'

 

[Skandelon]

I've never met anyone who picks and chooses his facts like our moderator, he'll probably cut me off for I'm his only threat on truth.

There are numerous moderators, most of which are Calvinistic in their theology. My being a moderator doesn't give me the ability to cut you off or edit your views. If I did then TomVols, who is a Reformed believer that I respect and a Administrator, would correct me. We can only edit offensive language and personal attacks. Stay away from those tactics, discuss the issues and there won't be a problem.

If one is Calvinsist, or Reformed, he was try to grind you into "Hyper".

Fact: You don't believe God loves and genuinely calls all (even the non-elect) to salvation.

Fact: Men like John MacArthur appose this view and label it as tending toward "hyperism."

I merely pointed out those two facts. I did so respectfully and without malice.

I will ask our moderator, my "Accuser", let's DEBATE, you and I. You pick the topic, hopefull synergism verses monergism. Your man centered religion versus the bible's God centered religion.

You are always welcome to start a new thread on a particular topic. You can't challenge individuals to a personal debate since this is an open forum. I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion of the topics, but personal attacks will not be tolerated.

 

[Skandelon]

“..those who "will listen"...” e.g. “...as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” [Acts 13:48]

That passage is addressed well by the ligustic scholar Adam Clarke HERE>

We're provided with another 'rider' or 'qualifier' that can be safely attached to passages concerning those that 'receive' or 'accept' Christ:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

Notice that they weren't even given the right to become children of God until the first "received him." So, it not those who pursue him, by running and willing after the law, but those who receive him by faith who are given the right to become his child. This parallels perfectly with Romans 9 which says in concluding:

"30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

The 'HS' doesn't 'hitchhike a ride' on the preaching of the gospel.

Correct. The HS built the car [gospe] from the ground up and drives the car, thus anything the gospel accomplishes is properly seen has a direct work of the Holy Spirit. Thanks for clarifying that truth.

 

[kyredneck]

That passage is addressed well by the ligustic scholar http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeact13.htm

Remember Skandelon, we're discussing 'vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared' (which, incidentally, you left off in your response, post #21) unto glory, and called, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles. Acts 13:45-48 parallels exactly as Christ explained in Jn 3:

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

The Jews, through their jealousy and blasphemy, showed that their works were evil, and came not to the light. The Gentiles, through their gladness and glorifying of the word, showed that God had wrought within them, and came to the light. In Jn 10, Christ says to His adversaries, “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” One doesn't become a sheep by believing. One believes because they are of His sheep.

Clarke's rendering of tetagmenoi to mean 'disposition or readiness of mind' on the part of those that believed in no way refutes the sound doctrine of life before belief, indeed it supports it. I like the comments from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:

“48....and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed--a very remarkable statement, which cannot, without force, be interpreted of anything lower than this, that a divine ordination to eternal life is the cause, not the effect, of any man's believing.”

Various translations of Acts 13:48:

Bible in Basic English
And the Gentiles, hearing this, were glad and gave glory to the word of God: and those marked out by God for eternal life had faith.

International Standard Version
When the gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord. Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed,

Weymouth New Testament
The Gentiles listened with delight and extolled the Lord's Message; and all who were pre-destined to the Life of the Ages believed.

New Living Translation
When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers.

GOD'S WORD Translation
The people who were not Jews were pleased with what they heard and praised the Lord's word. Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed.

World English Bible
As the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God. As many as were appointed to eternal life believed

King James Bible
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Notice that they weren't even given the right to become children of God until the first "received him."

Not become His children positionally, because God had made them alive already (next verse, verse 13). Now they had the power to become His children practically, and to 'lay hold on eternal life', e.g., 'If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk', and to reap the enormous benefit from our salvation, if we will. JFB explains it thus, 'to become - the sons--or more simply, "sons of God," in name and in nature.'

Verse 13 totally negates any act of the free will of man in the birth from above. Like it or not Skandelon, Jn 1:13 stands on it's own to refute the free will soteriology. Why didn't you quote Clarke on Jn 1:13? He didn't quite say what you'd like for him to say, did he? I'll give it here:

“...in consequence of being born of God; therefore, neither the will of the flesh-any thing that the corrupt heart of man could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man-any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here; this new birth must come through the will of God-through; his own unlimited power and boundless mercy, prescribing salvation by Christ Jesus alone....”

...."30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Of course your emphasis is on the 'free will' faith of man. Romans 9 is about the purpose of God according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth. It is not about free will because, 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.' God has mercy and compassion on whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills, Jews and Gentiles, for He is no respecter of persons.

Correct. The HS built the car [gospe] from the ground up and drives the car, thus anything the gospel accomplishes is properly seen has a direct work of the Holy Spirit. Thanks for clarifying that truth.

Anything accomplished by the gospel arises from the fact that the individual has already been made alive from above. The gospel does not impart life, it tells of it.

 

[Skandelon]

Remember Skandelon, we're discussing 'vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared' (which, incidentally, you left off in your response, post #21) unto glory, and called, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles.

I didn't leave it out. I explained that the "lump of clay" represents Israel and there are vessels of honor (apostles) and dishonor (hardened Jew/cut off) being created out of that same lump. But he expands his illustration to include not only the Jews but those now being called (grafted in), the Gentile nations.

Notice that when one says Israel they mean one nation, but Gentile is not one nation. It simply means all the nations that aren't Israel. Thus, passages like Acts 13 could very well be talking about how the nations God had appointed to be grafted in were proving this through their belief. If you look at the context of this passage, it is clear that there is a serious debate over the idea of God's desire to save non-Jewish nations. The proof of God's appointing of the different nations to be grafted into the gospel church is their faith in that gospel.

Got to run, but will answer the rest of your post later... Blessings!

 

[Skandelon]

Like it or not Skandelon, Jn 1:13 stands on it's own to refute the free will soteriology. Why didn't you quote Clarke on Jn 1:13? He didn't quite say what you'd like for him to say, did he? I'll give it here:

“...in consequence of being born of God; therefore, neither the will of the flesh-any thing that the corrupt heart of man could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man-any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here; this new birth must come through the will of God-through; his own unlimited power and boundless mercy, prescribing salvation by Christ Jesus alone....”

You say that as if Adam Clarke and his commentary on this verse somehow refutes "free will soteriology" when you and I both know full well that Clarke is an "Arminian" scholar, which would be clear if the previous paragraph had been quoted along with the one you provided, "He who is made a child of God enjoys the greatest privilege which the Divine Being can confer on this side eternity. Those who accept Jesus Christ, as he is offered to them in the Gospel, have, through his blood, a right to this sonship; for by that sacrifice this blessing was purchased; and the fullest promises of God confirm it to all who believe."

Of course your emphasis is on the 'free will' faith of man. Romans 9 is about the purpose of God according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth. It is not about free will because, 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.'

My emphasis in not on my "free will" theology, I don't make the mistake of trying to read my theological dogma into the text. Instead, my emphasis is to discover the intent of the author in his historical context. The debate of that day was not Cal/Arm, it was Jew/Gentile. The Jews were 'running/willing/pursuing' salvation as if it were by the works of the law, while Gentiles were receiving it by faith. That is the distinction being drawn by Paul. You apply it, falsely IMO, to support your systematic dogma of individual election of certain people to the neglect of all others. I simply read it within the context of the Jews, who are being cut off, while the Gentiles are being grafted in.

As Paul himself summaries the chapter by saying, "30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

God has mercy and compassion on whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills, Jews and Gentiles, for He is no respecter of persons.

Correct. And at that moment in history God was showing mercy to the Gentiles (yes individually as well as corporately), by grafting them into the church and sending them the gospel appeal to be reconciled to God. At the same time he was Hardening the Jews by cutting them off from the gospel (blinding them from it). In the mix of all this, God is fulfilling the prophecy that redemption of the world will come through Israel by reserving from Israel a remnant who are not being hardened, but who have been selected to carry the gospel message to the whole world. They were from Israel, hand selected for a noble purpose. Not because they were better or had earned that appointment (Paul, was the chief of sinners and killing believers), but he was molded out of the same lump of clay (Israel) as the rest of the Jews who were being hardened.

Does that mean the rest of Israel who was hardened are the non-elect reprobates who have no hope of being saved! "BY NO MEANS!!!" Paul says that he makes much of his ministry to the Gentiles because it may provoke the hardened ones to envy so as to be saved (Rm 11:14).

So, In your view those being "shown mercy" are the elect ones who will certainly be saved, and those being "hardened" are the non-elect ones who will certainly be condemned, but that is NOT a possible interpretation of the text if you consider the entire context, which is not divided by chapters and verses. It must be seen in the entire passage of the letter included chapters 9 when he starts the discussion wishing himself accursed for the sake of his fellow country men who are being 'cut off,' through the concluding doxology of chapter 11.

So, lets compare your view to mine with ALL the context in FULL view:

Those being shown mercy are the unclean Gentiles (those being grafted in) and if they get proud and unbelieving they too may be cut off (Read Romans 11). Which means being "shown mercy" or being "grafted in" doesn't mean the individual will certainly be saved...it just means they have the ability or opportunity to be saved "if they continue in their belief."

Those being hardened are the rebellious Jews (those being cut off), and if they "leave their unbelief" they too may be grafted back in (Read Romans 11). Which means being "hardened" or being "cut off" doesn't mean the individual will certainly be condemned to hell...it just means they are being judged for their rebellion, but they may be provoked by envy and could "leave their unbelief" to be "grafted in again." If the unnatural branches (Gentiles) can be grafted in (shown mercy), how much more can the natural branches be grafted in (shown mercy), if they leave their unbelief.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm typically accused of saying Romans 9 doesn't include individuals, but that is not true. Let me summarize what I was just explaining by looking at 3 individuals being discussed in Romans 9-11:

The Hardened Jew:
1. Loved by Paul to the point he wishes himself accursed for their sake
2. Pursuing, running after, willing to be saved through the law
3. Not being shown mercy, but chosen for "common use."
4. The one who might cry out, "Why did you create me like this?"
5. God held out his hands to them in mercy for years but they were rebellious and unwilling (Rm 10:21; Matt 23:37)
6. Cut off from the tree
7. Hardened in their unbelief, blinded from the gospel
8. But may be provoked to envy, grafted back in and shown mercy if they leave their unbelief (Rom. 11)

The Divinely Appointed Jew- like Paul himself
1. Individually hand picked by God from Israel for a "noble purpose"
2. He didn't deserve it. He was picked before he had done anything good or bad (just like Jacob's election over Esau, both children of the seed)
3. Reserved from the "hardening of Israel"
4. Taught the mysteries of the Kingdom by Christ himself
5. Sent to tell the world and make appeal for all to be reconciled

The Gentile
1. Being shown mercy
2. Grafted into the tree
3. Could be cut off if they "leave their unbelief" or become proud (Rm 11)

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

The Jew was shown mercy through the law and prophets while the Gentiles were blind; now the Gentiles are being shown mercy through the gospel and apostles while the Jews are blinded. He bound them all over to blindness, so as to show mercy to them all.

 

[kyredneck]

Skandelon, there's much for me to mull over, but I'm going to be occupied with other things this week; I am intrigued with your view of Ro 9 and intend to try to carry on with the dialog every chance I get.

Concerning Clarke, although I assumed he held to strong fulfilled eschatology views because preterists like to quote him, I didn't realize he was an Arminian. Just read a short bio, he was an 18th century English Methodist. Heheh, a lot of those folks back then were more 'Calvinistic' than some claiming to be Calvinists today.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

I know I said that's all I would give you to view, but there is a great article that describes the differences in Calvinism and Lutheranism as it relates to this point of our contention:



I think that makes my point well, but you are right that this particular distinction is not "Arminian" per say, but more "non-Calvinistic" but also not purely "Lutheran" either...just "lutheran" in this one respect...

Thoughts?

Having to do with Clark you seem to have 'overlooked' his full view on the matter as he 'does not' hold that man can just read scripture and come to a knowledge. Clarke while agreeing the scripture was the ultimate means (more specifically preaching) through which the Spirit of God worked, it was the Spirit who worked upon them to understand. Yet, Clarke maintains a consistent point that it is the preaching more so than the words themselves.

As you will note his statement regarding the very passages I stated on 2 Cor:

1Co 2:10
But God hath revealed them unto us - A manifest proof that the apostle speaks here of the glories of the Gospel, and not of the glories of the future world.
For the Spirit searcheth all things - This is the Spirit of God, which spoke by the prophets, and has now given to the apostles the fullness of that heavenly truth, of which He gave to the former only the outlines.
Yea, the deep things of God - It is only the Spirit of God which can reveal the counsels of God: these are the purposes which have existed in His infinite wisdom and goodness from eternity; and particularly what refers to creation, providence, redemption, and eternal glory, as far as men and angels are concerned in these purposes. The apostles were so fully convinced that the scheme of redemption proclaimed by the Gospel was Divine, that they boldly asserted that these things infinitely surpassed the wisdom and comprehension of man. God was now in a certain way become manifest; many attributes of his, which to the heathen world would have for ever lain in obscurity, (for the world by wisdom knew not God), were now not only brought to light as existing in him, but illustrated by the gracious displays which He had made of himself. It was the Spirit of God alone that could reveal these things; and it was the energy of that Spirit alone that could bring them all into effect - stamp and seal them as attributes and works of God for ever. The apostles were as truly conscious of their own inspiration as they were that they had consciousness at all; and what they spoke, they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If the Spirit of God was needed to reveal these things to the apostles how much more so are we, who are not the chosen apostles, to know the mind, heart, and desires of God unless the Spirit of God reveal them. As he states, they are beyond mans wisdom and comprehension.

1Co 2:14
....The apostle did speak of those high and sublime spiritual things to these animal men; but he explained them to those which were spiritual. He uses this word in this sense, 1Co_3:1; 1Co_9:11; and particularly in 1Co_2:15 of the present chapter: He that is spiritual judgeth all things.

But the natural man - The apostle appears to give this - as a reason why he explained those deep spiritual things to spiritual men; because the animal man - the man who is in a state of nature, without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, receiveth not the things of the Spirit - neither apprehends nor comprehends them: he has no relish for them; he considers it the highest wisdom to live for this world. Therefore these spiritual things are foolishness to him; for while he is in his animal state he cannot see their excellency, because they are spiritually discerned, and he has no spiritual mind.

If I am not mistaken, Clarke holds to regeneration preceding faith, which of itself also noted to be a classical Arminian position, though there was divergence on that issue.

However, in either case, my point is that your view does not equate to stating it is the 'Arminian' view. It is granted the Word and Preachings are means the Spirit uses.. however what is a tested to, even by Arminians, is the inward working of revelation upon the person (opening their eyes, at it were). That was my point and that to state your view is the Arminian position in contrast to Cals view here, does not correlate to their declared doctrinal stance as I find it. While some might indeed hold to your view of subject at hand, that does not necessitate nor dictate it as being the 'Arminian' view (the view in general or hold by most).

that was all I was saying :tongue3:

 

[David Lamb]

I've never met anyone who picks and chooses his facts like our moderator, he'll probably cut me off for I'm his only threat on truth.

If one is Calvinsist, or Reformed, he was try to grind you into "Hyper".

I've never seen anyone trying to "Accuse" so much as the bible says we have a "Accuser"

I will ask our moderator, my "Accuser", let's DEBATE, you and I. You pick the topic, hopefull synergism verses monergism. Your man centered religion versus the bible's God centered religion.

I'm not going to, by my friends advice, answer your personal questions, but rather challenge you to debate, in front of everyone to see the truth, if you are right, and standing before the Lord, then you should have no fear.

Likewise, if you are unsure, don't dig in, that is sin, just don't take the challenge.

Calv1, perhaps because you are comparatively new to the Baptist Board, you may be unaware that most of the forums on the BB, including this one, have several moderators. On the home page, www.baptistboard.com , there are 5 columns, and the column to the right of the screen lists the moderators for each forum. For this one, they are: Dr. Bob, DHK, Frogman, Phillip, rsr, blackbird, and Skandalon. From what I see on their profiles, some of them have calvinistic beliefs, and some don't. This is good, because if there were just one moderator, he/she might unintentionally be swayed by theological bias.

As far as Skandalon is concerned, I don't agree with his theology either, but I have found him to be courteous and respectful in his posts.

Your comment about being his only "threat on the truth" comes across as being arrogant, and I hope that was not your intention. You surely cannot have meant that you are the only one who challenges Skandalon's statements, because plenty do that.

And as I said on another thread: "Please remember that our messages on this board can be seen by anyone with internet access, anywhere in the world. Surely it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable, as someone else said recently."

 

[Skandelon]

Clarke while agreeing the scripture was the ultimate means (more specifically preaching) through which the Spirit of God worked, it was the Spirit who worked upon them to understand.

Do you believe the Spirit COULD have chosen to work on them to understand through normative means, like preaching? For example, a teenager is reading the gospel, but just doesn't get it. A minister sees him, feels a prompting to go sit down and speak with him. The teen says I just don't understand some of these things. The minister sits and explains the truth in a way the teen can understand. The teen repents and is baptized. Isn't that what happened to Philip and the Ethiopian? He asked for help and Philip taught him so he believed? How will they know unless someone tells them?

Yet, Clarke maintains a consistent point that it is the preaching more so than the words themselves.

Again, you are making an unneeded distinction. After all, what is the preacher preaching except the words themselves? I'm not sure I understand your point.

As you will note his statement regarding the very passages I stated on 2 Cor: 1Co 2:10:

This is the Spirit of God, which spoke by the prophets, and has now given to the apostles the fullness of that heavenly truth...

The apostles were so fully convinced that the scheme of redemption proclaimed by the Gospel was Divine, that they boldly asserted that these things infinitely surpassed the wisdom and comprehension of man. God was now in a certain way become manifest; many attributes of his, which to the heathen world would have for ever lain in obscurity, (for the world by wisdom knew not God), were now not only brought to light as existing in him, but illustrated by the gracious displays which He had made of himself. It was the Spirit of God alone that could reveal these things; and it was the energy of that Spirit alone that could bring them all into effect - stamp and seal them as attributes and works of God for ever. The apostles were as truly conscious of their own inspiration as they were that they had consciousness at all; and what they spoke, they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I'm not claiming Clarke and I agree on every aspect of this point. But this particular quote actually makes my point. Notice the parts I left emboldened. The Gospel was Divine, and "these things" contained within it, which were just being made known, we mysteries, or "beyond man's wisdom and comprehension," but in the next line he says, "God was now in a certain way become manifest..." In other words, the gospel being revealed through the apostles, who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, is making God and these mysteries "manifest" or clear. Which is what he was indicating when he said, "This is the Spirit of God, which spoke by the prophets, and has now given to the apostles the fullness of that heavenly truth."

If the Spirit of God was needed to reveal these things to the apostles how much more so are we, who are not the chosen apostles, to know the mind, heart, and desires of God unless the Spirit of God reveal them. As he states, they are beyond mans wisdom and comprehension.

Actually, I believe his intent is to say that they were beyond man's wisdom and comprehension UNTIL they were revealed by the apostles through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Which again, is why he said, "This is the Spirit of God, which spoke by the prophets, and has now given to the apostles the fullness of that heavenly truth."

How did the apostles come to know this mysteries? By Divine Inspiration.

How do we come to know this mysteries? By testimony of the those divinely inspired. (Preaching, scriptures, church---all of which are lead, carried, preserved and moved by the HS still today)

You are attempting to make the argument that because the apostles were revealed these mysteries by divine inspiration that the same divine inspiration is needed to understand their testimony of that divine inspiration, which is simply not supported. In fact, why did God have the apostles write or preach what was revealed to them, when the Holy Spirit could accomplish in everyone the exact same thing he accomplished in the apostles? In fact, why is there apostolic authority when we apparently have the same divine inspiration as they did? See my point?

If I am not mistaken, Clarke holds to regeneration preceding faith, which of itself also noted to be a classical Arminian position, though there was divergence on that issue.

Really? Was regeneration another word for the quickening or awaking of the spirit? And I guess they believed everyone was regenerated but not saved? Do you know where this is written about so I can read it?

Where do you stand? If you are apart of the "divergence" then couldn't the same argument be made against your posts as the one you've leveled against mine?

That was my point and that to state your view is the Arminian position in contrast to Cals view here, does not correlate to their declared doctrinal stance as I find it

Well, according to what you just said about Clarke and the classical Arminian view that regeneration proceeds faith view, I'd say there is not an Arminian among us, is there???

Would you be interested in defending the more classical Arminian view in light of the biblical data, rather than just through historical labels? You didn't address the article I pointed on with regard to the Lutheran position on this particular subject, but clearly their is an historical precedence for the manner in which I view the working of God through normative means. I dare say, its a much more biblically support view as well, but maybe I'm biased?