An Open Response to My "Arminian" Brothers & Sisters

Did you miss this sentence, Scott?

"And I am sure the same could be said about some Calvinists, as well.

So if I am being audacious, it is toward both sides.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Ken Hamilton,

I think if Arminianism is heresy then all who believe this would have to be heretics. IF I were wrong about my beliefs I would hope that God would not send me to Hell for preaching that Christ died to save every human being. I don't like staying too long in Florida, I wouldn't do well in this unthinkable place.

If Calvinism is wrong then it is heresy. All those who believe this would also be heretics. It is only Jesus who will judge whether all Calvinists and Arminians enter Heaven. [John 5:22b] Some in both camps may have head knowledge and not saving faith.

 

Jesus had some extremely harsh words for those who thought their self-attained righteousness would get them into the kingdom of God. Does that mean, by implication, that you'll wind up in hell because you think that your free-will gets you into the kingdom of God? I personally do not think so (and fortunately it isn't a decision I have to make), but IMO free-will theology dishonors God. If that makes it heresy, then so be it. If not, then perhaps another word would be more appropriate. Error, perhaps.

 

It is true that There are doctrinal differences and that Arminians see Calvinism as "needing" to find "alternate explanations" for scriptures that appear to directly refute Calvinism.

But it is also true that on a number of threads the Calvinist attacks against Arminianism accuses the Arminians of believing in "another god" and of "ignoring scripture" - etc etc.

I would hope that we can simply stick to the scriptural references and the logical implications of selecting one view over another -- an also, one day be willing to admit a relative strength in a given viewpoint as compared to a relative weakness.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are overstating the case.

Many Arminians - including the 5 points listed regarding the Arminian position - DO accept that salvation is all of God, is by grace through faith and that man - sinful man is totally depraved.

Hence our FOCUS on the John 12:32 fact that God supernaturally - and sovereignly CHOOSES to Draw ALL MANKIND "instead of all TYPES of mankind" to Himself.

It would be difficult to patronize Calvinism to the point of ignoring the fact that the Protestant reformation did NOT errupt over "free will" but over the doctrines of grace related to indulgences, forgiveness, abuses of the RCC, Mariolotry, etc. What was in fact a REFORM movement WITHIN Catholicism at its start.

A popular example, Fox's book of martyrs includes very little by way of debate over "free will". And though the teachings of Calvin do "Get debated" this is not what people were jumping up and down to go to the stake over. If you take the Arminian Protestant view of Mary, indulgences, the Bible alone, salvation by grace through faith, the Pope, the authority of the Catholic church - you have the FULL formula required in the dark ages to get you burned at the stake by the RCC. There are few Catholic historians that would deny that.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 08, 2002, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

A slight error - at the start.

God Knew all that we would do = God "Determined to Create" US and to Create FREE WILL. But God then KNOWS what that FUTURE is - complex and combining HIS creation and HIS decision to enable the will.

The problem in Calvinism is that it needs to "BE" God to reach its "God Can not DO that" conclusions about what is "possible" for God once He knows the future.

As it is, God does not "determine" that you will go to hell - He simply "knows it" as opposed to God who "Determines" that He will "create you".

Again this is the Calvinist problem in comprehending free will. At the very start Calvinism denies that free will CAN exist if God Knows the future.

But BY DEFINITION the Very PREMISE of free will IS that God GIVES free will even though He KNOWs the future.

IF you deny that free will CAN exist simply because God Knows the future - then EVEN GOD does not have FREE WILL. For CHrist lives and dies on earth WITHOUT FREE WILL in that case.

God Knows that Free WILL by definition means that humands are not REUIRED to choose life. THey may choose against life JUST as Adam did, JUST as Lucifer did even if they WERENT totaly depraved. How much MORE if they ARE.

Once God enables the will - the problem of CHOICE is that EVEN a SINLESS being could find occassion to CHOOSE against life. Did God "CREATE ADAM" to DIE? Did God "not love Adam"?? Did God not LOVE the perfect sinnless angel - Lucifer??

Your entire argument is based on efforts to "BE God" and understand if He lOVED the sinnless - or sinful beings that HE KNOWS will one day use their free will to CHOOSE against Him.

Your Arguments against God allowing free will are based on nothing more than your innability to "be God" and figure out how He could have given Adam or Lucifer or Christ Free Will if He KNEW what they would choose.

Further - your arguments against God loving them ARE ONLY based in His God-power of Foreknowledge that you do not have - and that apply EQUALLY to Adam and Lucifer -- sinnless holy perfect beings.

IN the end it is nothing more than a problem of "man" unnable to comprehend the God-power of Foreknowledge.

You make my point against Calvinism - perfectly.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 08, 2002, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

You logic "does require Calvinism". It requires the Calvinist tactic of ignoring the defintion and conseuqence of free will IN the context of God's foreknowledge. Free will by definition requires that God does NOT merely "decree hell for Lucifer, Adam, Israel" or any that fail of their own "Decision". You argue that they are fully "predestined" and in fact have no free will the moment God KNOWS their future (whether that future be good or bad), and that IF that future is bad God is not LOVE toward them no matter what scripture says.

By that definition God Himself has NO free will, nor did Christ on earth, nor did Lucifer - sinless and perfect from the start, NOR did Adam, sinless and perfect from the start.

And by that definition God did not LOVE Adam, or Lucifer, or Israel.

By your defintion the God of Love - CREATES sinless beings to burn in hell INSTEAD of being a God of Love Who REALLY "so loved the WORLD" and who REALLY "is not willing for ANY to Perish".

That IS the fruit of Calvinism's failure to deal with the god-power of foreknowledge and so it draws its OWN conclusions based on how it "thinks" foreknowledge works.

aarrrrgh - that is so predictable.

 

Jeff - I too had to come to the point of considering what kind of supreme being is Calvinism painting for us - here is the wonderful picture of the supreme being we find when highlighting the points of 5 point Calvinism

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 08, 2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Yea, Bob, that pile of junk you keep posting over and over and over and over and over again really improves the tone in this forum. Real "Christian" of ya.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

It is "instructive" to the objective reader that my previous post was in response to Jeffs statements about the view of the "supreme being" that is being taught by one view of scripture vs another (Calvinism). IN Jeff's case it was pro-Calvinism.

So the topic was already broached as "What view does this give" of the Supreme being.

It is even "more instructive" that the oft-repeated scenario above that DOES incorporate KEY tenants of Calvinism has yet to be "Answered" by our 5 point Calvinist bretheren.

Todate only Ken H. Has tried to solve the problem it poses for Calvinism in any way - and his solution is to try to boost the Matt 7 "FEW" number to be the "MANY" by insisting on a post-millenial 2nd coming with lots of aborted infants present.

My guess is that few other 5 point Calvinists would take "That solution". I myself think it is clear that Christ's reference to "Few" in MAtt 7 is not addressing "aborted infants" but rather the choices the majority make (I think most 5 pointers might even agree on that one). And in any case - the scenario above deals with an adult child beyond the age of accountability - not an infant. (However this only speaks to Ken's solution - what about the 5 pointers?)

So - we are left with "silence" on the part of our Calvinist bretheren by way of substantive response to the points raised.

In fact - on one of the threads where it was posted they actually responded in strong support - saying that in fact we should not question God's dealing in the case mentioned above JUST as the person in the scenario does not question God.

I am simply appealing for honesty and integrity when dealing with the points of Calvinism it highlights. Respond with substance, do not simply complain that it is exposing the problems of Calvinism.

IN Christ,

Bob

[ November 09, 2002, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

I find it remarkable that some folks are reading the following verse and assigning mental numbers to the "many" and "few".

Here's the very next verse...

Shall we now discuss how easy it is to recognize false prophets because all we have to do is look for people wearing sheep costumes?

Am I the only one who sees verses 13 and 14 simply as the message about how easy the road is to hell compared to the way to the kingdom of God? I take most of the Bible very literally, but before I saw others discuss it here, it never even entered my mind that this was to be taken as a literal comparison between the actual number of people who make it to heaven and hell.

 

So you would be re-translating the text as
"Wide is the gate and EASY the path that leads to destruction, and Narrow the gate and difficult the path that leads to eternal life - those who find it must try very hard".

Instead of the full text as it actually is

I suppose you are right about deleting those parts in bold. If we did that, the text would merely be addressing the relative "difficulty" and would completely ignore the explicit relative comparison that "MANY" vs "FEW" always means to humans when BOTH are present and used to Contrast two results.

A good point.

Bob

[ November 09, 2002, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

I'm not saying that at all, Bob, and I suspect you know it. The sermon on the mount communicates big picture messages, often with hyperbole. The important point Jesus is making is "Enter by the narrow gate". It may very well be that more people go down the wide road, and perhaps there ARE going to be more people in hell than heaven. I have no idea. But the message of Jesus here isn't "Hell: Population 100 trillion; Heaven: Population 144,000."

By the way, how do you manage to participate on this board if you've plucked your eyes out the last time they caused you to sin?

 

AN exact number has never been proposed on this subject - why pretend that it is a debate over some exact number? IT only sidetracks onto a rabbit trail of non-issues.

The actual point of debate is not precise numbers like 10,454,565,1243,008 - but rather whether we can "believe the CONTRAST language of the text" when IT SAYS that the MANY fail and the FEW succeed. You seem to "need" to deny part of the contrasting language specifically the fact that it is contrasting NOT ONLY ease vs difficulty but ALSO the Results! - MANY vs FEW.

However - the text clearly ADDS the MANY vs FEW relative-group-size contrast IN ADDITION to the Narrow and Broad contrasts of difficulty.

But perhaps your views of Calvinism "need" you to turn a blind eye to that part of the contrast - I can understand how that might be.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 09, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

I agree with Charles Haddon Spurgeon that more people will be in heaven than in hell - all those who show faith and repentance in their lives plus all of those who die in young childhood, infancy, and in the womb will equal a majority. Jesus Christ must have the preeminence over Satan. And there are reliable interpretations of the "narrow gate" and the "broad way" in the Sermon on the Mount within the context of the passage to support the view that Jesus is not stating that more people will ultimately be lost than saved.

This subject has been discussed before in this forum and anyone who is interested can look back a few months and read the posts on it.

I certainly hope that more people will be in heaven than in hell, but I am not sure everyone in this forum has the same desire that I do based on these previous posts from several weeks ago.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Actually, it says "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

In other words, the message here is "Enter by the narrow gate." The rest of it is a warning that going down the narrow path and fining the narrow gate isn't easy to do so, and many don't even go that way - they go down the broad road to destruction. (Technically, they don't "fail" to find the narrow gate because they're not even trying to find it.)

So is Jesus actually saying something about the relative populations of hell and heaven? Well, if you insist on interpreting it that way, then be my guest. Tell you what -- when we get to our final destinations, we'll know, and if you're right you can say "I told you so."

 

Thanks for pointing that out - nice job.

But of course maybe "there are MANY who GO in" in a "few" kind of way as you seem to hope for eternal life. I certainly hope MANY means FEW like you for everyone's sake.

AND as you point out about the FEW above - maybe when it says "THERE ARE FEW who find it" it is meaning that in a "MANY" kind of way so that we can pretend we don't know that FEW is less than MANY and just say "I really don't know if there are MORE going one place than another when I read what Christ has said about this".

I agree that it is good from a Calvinist POV to pretend that we don't see that MANY is more than FEW when used in a "comparison".

I actually agree 100% with you in that context.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Do you know how everyone gets saved, Bob? Will heaven contain the souls of every aborted fetus, the souls of every miscarriage, the souls of every baby who dies? What does the Bible mean when it says Jesus preached to the dead? Was He declaring victory, or was He giving them the gospel? Can you know the answers to any of these questions for certain? You may claim to know, since you seem to think you have the definitive answer on MANY/FEW, but I don't believe you can know for certain.

When Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate...", He was talking about a specific point that affects those to whom the message is addressed (all those who have to deal with the issue of taking the broad or narrow path). Of that group, it is obvious that He said there are more who will take the broad road than find the narrow gate. But Jesus didn't explicitly say He was describing the ultimate relative populations of hell and heaven. So I will assume nothing about said relative populations. You may assume what you like, but I'm not going to read that conclusion into the text.

[ November 10, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

Shall we now discuss how easy it is to recognize false prophets because all we have to do is look for people wearing sheep costumes? </font>[/QUOTE]Ummmm, sheep's clothing is wool. That is what the shepherd's wore. No one is referring to 'costumes' there. The point is that false prophets look like regular shepherds of the people, or pastors.

and then later:

Oh please! Your EYES cannot CAUSE you to sin. Your mind/heart cause you to sin. The eyes are idiomatic for what you understand, or think you understand, see?

And thus what Jesus is saying is that if what you think you understand is causing you to sin, get rid of it! It's better to go to heaven not understanding (blind trust) than to not get there at all.

In the meantime, has anyone noticed the word 'find' in that quote from the Sermon on the Mount? Just six verses before, Jesus had said "seek, and you will find..."

Sonds like He's actually asking the unsaved to DO something. But then in Isaiah 1:14, we see exactly the same request about doing something when the Lord says, "Come let us reason together..."

Maybe there's more to all this than the Calvinists are thinking?

Yes. The little ones are His. He said so.

Where do you see that?

"Enter through the narrow gate follows immediately after this:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For EVERYONE who asks received; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? IF YOU THEN, THOUGH YOU ARE EVIL, KNOW HOW TO GIVE GOOD GIFTS TO YOUR CHILDREN, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION, and MANY enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that LEADS TO LIFE, and only a FEW find it.
Watch out for false prophets....

There it all is in context. It should be read that way.

[ November 10, 2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]