According to Dave Hunt, It's a Good Thing That I was Arminian First...

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi T cassidy;

Of course it does! Being in bondage to the law of sin and death means that not only can't the person accept the gift of life, he can't understand it,

I disagree and so does scripture;

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
I disagree;
You can only have it that way if, when you are bound to Christ you can no longer sin. All the saved still sin.

Sorry, but you seem to have missed the point. The bible is very clear that only those whom the Father draws come to Christ, and that none seek after Him.

If this is so then a man who is bound to sin can see and understand what is spiritual and can make a choice.

You are trying to compare apples to bricks. The unsaved man has one nature, the old, fallen, nature. The saved man has two natures, the old, and the new. When he sins it is the old, and when he does right it is the new.

The saved can make a choice just as the sinner.

Yes, both can make choices. The saved man can choose which nature to follow, but the lost man has only one nature to follow and he will always choose to do the wrong thing (Isa 64:6).

Choice is given man all through the Bible and never anywhere in scripture is that choice ever denied to man.

Nobody has ever said that choice is denied to man. That is why I said "you fail to understand." What we have been saying is that the will is not free, but bound in sin. It can choose, but will always choose to do the wrong thing. That is what "depravity" means.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

I am praying that he will shine His light on those who think they are good enough to contradict the bible regarding their not being as lost as the bible says they are.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
I disagree and so does scripture;

No, you disagree and don't understand the scriptures.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

We understand that God made the Universe. But nowhere does general revelation tell us of Christ and His atonement. That is contained only in Special Revelation. Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.

 

[Monergist]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Even in the mind of God before the foundation of the world. Man was not foreknown, because man simply did not exsist. Christ was foreknown because He exsisted.

<snip>

How is it we obtain what is predestined before the foundation of the world? If we are foreknown then we obtained it before we were born. Impossible!

<snip>

If God knows how they will turn out and still creates them then to go hell. Then He is responsible.

<snip>

He changes his mind about man all the time. Would you like another example?

Words cannot express the sadness and anger that I sense when I read or hear words such as these from a professed follower of Jesus Christ. Mike, if you really believe these things you are holding to some very serious error. You have just denied the very attributes of God that without possessing would render Him no God at all.

When I posted the OP I found Hunt's statements to be blasphemous, but there is one thing that he implies that I have to agree with; and that is that the Arminian 'gospel' and the Calvinist gospel are not the same-- One or the other MUST be "another gospel." One of the reasons that I am so disturbed by the prevalance of Arminian, 'free-will,' and Semi-Pelagian teaching is that it INEVITABLY leads, if followed consistently, to the God-denying and God-dishonoring statements like you have just made.

You state "If God knows how they will turn out and still creates them then to go hell. Then He is responsible." You are correct. This is a problem for non-Calvinists who want to affirm foreknowledge but deny predestination. The very reason they object to predestination come back to bite. At least you are consistent, Thats what makes it so scary-- for one who starts denying God's attributes is already creating a god of their own making, an idol, and well down the slippery slope heading to atheism.

 

[4His_glory]

God changes His mind Mike? Sounds like open theism to me.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Monergist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Even in the mind of God before the foundation of the world. Man was not foreknown, because man simply did not exsist. Christ was foreknown because He exsisted.

&lt;snip&gt;

How is it we obtain what is predestined before the foundation of the world? If we are foreknown then we obtained it before we were born. Impossible!

&lt;snip&gt;

If God knows how they will turn out and still creates them then to go hell. Then He is responsible.

&lt;snip&gt;

He changes his mind about man all the time. Would you like another example?

Words cannot express the sadness and anger that I sense when I read or hear words such as these from a professed follower of Jesus Christ. Mike, if you really believe these things you are holding to some very serious error. You have just denied the very attributes of God that without possessing would render Him no God at all.

When I posted the OP I found Hunt's statements to be blasphemous, but there is one thing that he implies that I have to agree with; and that is that the Arminian 'gospel' and the Calvinist gospel are not the same-- One or the other MUST be "another gospel." One of the reasons that I am so disturbed by the prevalance of Arminian, 'free-will,' and Semi-Pelagian teaching is that it INEVITABLY leads, if followed consistently, to the God-denying and God-dishonoring statements like you have just made.

You state "If God knows how they will turn out and still creates them then to go hell. Then He is responsible." You are correct. This is a problem for non-Calvinists who want to affirm foreknowledge but deny predestination. The very reason they object to predestination come back to bite. At least you are consistent, Thats what makes it so scary-- for one who starts denying God's attributes is already creating a god of their own making, an idol, and well down the slippery slope heading to atheism. </font>[/QUOTE]Poor grand standing, not much substance and alot of crazy accustations. Non Cavinist are on a slippery road to athiemism and a bunch of other bunk? You like it when non followers of calvin claim you make God the author of sin, that you takw
e away His holyness and righteousness?! That you take away His soveriegnty by telling God how He must be soveriegn?! That you remove His attribute of being Love, and a just being?
It never ceases to amaze me how SELFrighteous people will become to win an arguement.

THere is error on both sides, calvinism is not the main theology of born again christians, never has been. So to take the type of stand you do is nothing but pride.
Lets learn to debate without trying to belittle or question someone's salvation. Lets listen and make an honest effort to hear what the other is saying.

 

[Monergist]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:

Poor grand standing, not much substance and alot of crazy accustations.

That was a fitting title for your post!

Non Cavinist are on a slippery road to athiemism and a bunch of other bunk?

When they espouse a false God - such as the claims that I was responding to- then they are well on their way to denying God altogether.

You like it when non followers of calvin claim you make God the author of sin, that you takw
e away His holyness and righteousness?! That you take away His soveriegnty by telling God how He must be soveriegn?! That you remove His attribute of being Love, and a just being?

Those are all false obections, and I hate every false way. So no, I don't like it. I don't like seeing God's character reproached, not at all.

It never ceases to amaze me how SELFrighteous people will become to win an arguement.

I'll suffer that indignity for the cause of truth.

THere is error on both sides, calvinism is not the main theology of born again christians, never has been. So to take the type of stand you do is nothing but pride.

I take God to be who He has revealed Himself to be. Without question or objection. Pride assumes that it knows better than God. God has revealed that He knows all things, ordains all things, does as He pleases, and changes not. Pride diputes those things. So for the cause of truth, I will gladly bear that indignity also.

Lets learn to debate without trying to belittle or question someone's salvation. Lets listen and make an honest effort to hear what the other is saying.

I can't help but notice that you have not shown an inkling of indignation at Hunt's claims that Calvinists are not saved. Why is that?

 

[Timtoolman]

Actually Mon, I think Hunts book was rather weak. So I didn't read all of it. I don't approve of Hunt calling any calvanist unsaved either. I would not read anyone's writings who are so radical and illogical, as to make that assumption.

And Mon, I take God to be as who He is also. Noone can show otherwise.

Tim

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi Paul 33;
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Predestination is something God does to those whom he foreknew (Romans 8:29).

Those whom God foreknew he determined beforehand that they would indeed be conformed to the likeness of his Son.

True and you cannot be predestined until you are foreknown.

The problem with these discussions is the failure to distinguish between what took place in the mind of God before the foundation of the earth and what takes place in time and space in the here and now.

Even in the mind of God before the foundation of the world. Man was not foreknown, because man simply did not exsist. Christ was foreknown because He exsisted.
To know someone is to meet them person to person A man comes to know of God upon conviction. With out this conviction he cannot be saved. Upon hearing the gospel all are convicted in varying degrees. Some respond, some don't.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
You will notice in this verse says ("He has chosen us in Him"). We are not in Him until we are saved. It is when we are saved that we become part of Him.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

How is it we obtain what is predestined before the foundation of the world? If we are foreknown then we obtained it before we were born. Impossible!

God can know this about the creatures he is going to create and still not be responsible for their choices.

If God knows how they will turn out and still creates them then to go hell. Then He is responsible.
Just like the Architec who designs a building. If he designs the building to fail He is responsible. Man doesn't fail because of the designer. Man fails because the designer designed him with the ability to fail, or succeed. Success in standing, is with in man's choice when called, or comes to the knowledge of the path.

It is when we stop striving againt the LORD (rebelling) that he grants us the gift of regeneration, repentance, and faith

It still takes that choice to stop rebelling.
Conviction is what wins man over not regeneration.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

 

[Charles Meadows]

DocC,

I think Ray Berrian raised an interesting point. God created all men (given) and all men are sinful by nature (given). If God predestines who is to be saved (the only way out of damnation) then who is truly to blame for the fate of the lost?

The answer given is "sin". But if the man's nature was sin to begin with he can do nothing else - because if he COULD do otherwise then he could in effect "save himself" by good conduct.

As such the logical end is that God (perhaps in His all-knowing wisdom) determined they they would be lost.

So Berrian has a good point!

People by nature like to organize things, comparing and contrasting them, as a means of learning. Calvinism ( as we know it today, which I DO agree is a reasonable representation of what Calvin HIMSELF believed) is an internally consistent logical paradigm in which to contextualize man's relationship with God.

I agree that if one starts with an inerrantist stance and systematically applies rules of logic and organization to the Bible he will end up with something pretty close to Calvinism.

But the question is this:

Can we define God in a system?

If we are able to acquiesce (or not) to a divine invitation does that really mean that God is not all-powerful? It sounds like we are making God subservient to logic instead of the other way around.

It seems to me that God gave us all free will because He wanted a people who chose Him. If our salvation (those of us who are saved by grace) was predetermined then why the whole scheme of history?

And the idea that free will means open theism? Is God once again limited by our logic?

I respect Calvinism for its internal consistency as a system (a HUMAN one though) and I respect the fervent, God-fearing motives of its adherents - but in the end I reject it because it attempts to define what God must do based on human logical constructs.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Tim;

Words cannot express the sadness and anger that I sense when I read or hear words such as these from a professed follower of Jesus Christ. Mike, if you really believe these things you are holding to some very serious error. You have just denied the very attributes of God that without possessing would render Him no God at all.

Just how is it that you think I'm mad or sad.

That you take away His soveriegnty by telling God how He must be soveriegn?!

Your obvious problem here is you didn't understand what I wrote. Calvinist take away God's Soveriegnty with limited atonement a concept that is not scriptural.
Calvinist take away His Soverignty when they say God's Soveriegnty when He could not give man his own domion over his own destiny and still remain Sovereign.

Poor grand standing, not much substance and alot of crazy accustations. Non Cavinist are on a slippery road to athiemism and a bunch of other bunk? You like it when non followers of calvin claim you make God the author of sin, that you takw

Talk about no substance your whole post is about how you feel or think and not about scripture.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
DocC,

I think Ray Berrian raised an interesting point. God created all men (given) and all men are sinful by nature (given). If God predestines who is to be saved (the only way out of damnation) then who is truly to blame for the fate of the lost?

The problem for Ray is that arminianism doesn't solve this supposed problem any better.

If God creates all men knowing what they will choose but they have no choice over whether to be created or not then He still is responsible for creating someone He knows He will later condemn to hell.

Open theism answers this problem... but creates so many more that it cannot be accepted.

The answer given is "sin". But if the man's nature was sin to begin with he can do nothing else - because if he COULD do otherwise then he could in effect "save himself" by good conduct.

The answer is "would" a man do any differently. I suggest that Adam was representative and that is why God rightly imputes his sin to us. None of us would have done any differently.

BTW, non-calvinists do propose that "good conduct" is involved in salvation. They believe that a decision that ultimately originates within the man's will is necessary for one to be saved. Therefore, those who make the "good" decision are saved while those who make the "bad" decision are lost.

No amount of semantics changes the FACT that this introduces a human deed into salvation.

 

[Timtoolman]

Mike you have me confused with Monergist I think. you qoute her then qoute me from her. ONe of us is confused?

Tim

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Brother James;

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

If "all" doesn't mean all. and Whosoever doesn't mean anyone but the elect. Then certainly "Known" doesn't mean personally. God knew about us of course, but He didn't know us personally because, we didn't exsist.
I've read your post in other areas and I know your smarter than that.
A few questions question;
Would you agree that God is the one who created men and could have made them anyway he wanted?
If so why do Calvinist tell the world men cannot have any choice in there own Salvation. Was not man granted domion over the animals? If man has domion over the Animals man is in partial control of His world. and that would destroy God's sovereignty wouldn't it?.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Tim;
If I'm confused! then look carefully at your post at the top of the page.
First it says in you own words originally posted by monergist. Then what I said is presented. Seems your the one confused monergist didn't say what I said. By the way who's snip?
Your post is barely readable the way you have it arranged. If you would like a clearer reply be clearer in your post.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Scott J;

The problem for Ray is that arminianism doesn't solve this supposed problem any better.

There is no problem except in Calvinism.
Predestination is not unalterable. If it were then God's plans would be Sovereign over God and it isn't. The greek word proorizo is not defined as unalterable this is a English definition of predestination, not the Greek.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi Brother James;
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

If "all" doesn't mean all. and Whosoever doesn't mean anyone but the elect. Then certainly "Known" doesn't mean personally. God knew about us of course, but He didn't know us personally because, we didn't exsist.
I've read your post in other areas and I know your smarter than that.
A few questions question;
Would you agree that God is the one who created men and could have made them anyway he wanted?
If so why do Calvinist tell the world men cannot have any choice in there own Salvation. Was not man granted domion over the animals? If man has domion over the Animals man is in partial control of His world. and that would destroy God's sovereignty wouldn't it?.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.


Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

You really need to pay close attention to vs 16 and you might get delivered from your error.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Monergist;

Words cannot express the sadness and anger that I sense when I read or hear words such as these from a professed follower of Jesus Christ. Mike, if you really believe these things you are holding to some very serious error. You have just denied the very attributes of God that without possessing would render Him no God at all.

When I posted the OP I found Hunt's statements to be blasphemous, but there is one thing that he implies that I have to agree with; and that is that the Arminian 'gospel' and the Calvinist gospel are not the same-- One or the other MUST be "another gospel." One of the reasons that I am so disturbed by the prevalance of Arminian, 'free-will,' and Semi-Pelagian teaching is that it INEVITABLY leads, if followed consistently, to the God-denying and God-dishonoring statements like you have just made.

You state "If God knows how they will turn out and still creates them then to go hell. Then He is responsible." You are correct. This is a problem for non-Calvinists who want to affirm foreknowledge but deny predestination. The very reason they object to predestination come back to bite. At least you are consistent, Thats what makes it so scary-- for one who starts denying God's attributes is already creating a god of their own making, an idol, and well down the slippery slope heading to atheism.

Why not just prove me wrong and on my way to hell instead of making such wild accusations?

If you found Dave Hunt to be blasphemous it's only because the truth hurts. It must be a shock to find you are not right about what you've obviously believed for so long.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi Scott J;
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The problem for Ray is that arminianism doesn't solve this supposed problem any better.

There is no problem except in Calvinism.</font>[/QUOTE] OK. If you say so I guess that settles it...

Predestination is not unalterable. If it were then God's plans would be Sovereign over God and it isn't. The greek word proorizo is not defined as unalterable this is a English definition of predestination, not the Greek.

You have created a false dichotomy. God's plans and sovereignty are perfectly consistent with one another.

So are you saying God in fact does not foreknow who will be saved and lost according to your brand of arminianism? Are you arguing for open theism?

I will state bluntly that open theists do not worship the same God I do. They deny a critical attribute that He reveals about Himself... so if that is your position, please forgive me for debating you as if you are an unbeliever if I choose to interact with you at all.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Brother James;

Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

You really need to pay close attention to vs 16 and you might get delivered from your error.

I did pay close attention to that verse. It proves what I've been saying all along. God did not know us before the foundation of the world because of the last phrase of that verse.
"when [as yet there was] none of them." God only knew about us He did not know us. He doesn't know us until we accept Him as Savior. So our being foreknown as it is called is not knowing us personally but knowing of us. Huge difference
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike