Arminian Aberrations

[Aaron]

Oh, and notice he didn't answer my question:

Where did he mention the cross, atonement, resurrection and call them to repentance and faith? What kind of gospel doesn't mention those elements?

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. :jesus:

Scandal will say that is not the Gospel. What now can he argue the next time someone asserts he does not know it?

 

[Skandelon]

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. :jesus:

Scandal will say that is not the Gospel. What now can he argue the next time someone asserts he does not know it?

1. I never said that elements of the gospel truth aren't taught by Christ throughout his ministry, for indeed they are. He teaches A LOT about the truths of the kingdom and elements of what is to come in the gospel appeal.

2. John 3:16 wasn't being preached publicly to all Israel as the message in John 6. He was speaking to Nicodemus alone and it was recorded in scripture for our behalf, so once again you misspeak.

3. Even as crucial as the truth spoken of in John 3:16 is, it still doesn't expound on the atonement, resurrection and make appeal to repentance.

4. You are once again ignoring the reason why Jesus spoke in parables (Mk 4) and hardened Israel's heart (John 12:39) to keep them from repentance. For if indeed they were born Totally Depraved there would have been no need for such methods of prevention.

 

[Skandelon]

Aaron,

Additionally, it would be good to take a look at where Jesus commissions his apostles to go into all the world:

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Earlier he had said...

27 "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the light. What you hear in a whisper,[d] proclaim on the housetops."

What do you think he means by "what I tell you in the dark?"

Acts 1 also sheds light on this:

1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 6 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." 9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

 

[Luke2427]

Oh Really?

Let's look as C. Hodges teaching on the subject, shall we:

There is no grace in accepting a pecuniary satisfaction. It cannot be refused. It ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the case of judicial satisfaction. If a substitute be provided and accepted it is a matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it may never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those who hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice. The application of its benefits is determined by the covenant between the Father and the Son. Those for whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins. It is the stipulations of the covenant which forbid such a result. Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed, it may be sincerely offered to all men with the assurance that if they believe it shall accrue to their salvation. His work being specially designed for the salvation of his own people, renders, through the conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly consistent with its being made the ground of the general offer of the gospel. Lutherans and Reformed agree entirely, as before stated, in their views of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, and consequently, so far as that point is concerned, there is the same foundation for the general offer of the gospel according to either scheme. What the Reformed or Augustinians hold about election does not affect the nature of the atonement. That remains the same whether designed for the elect or for all mankind. It does not derive its nature from the secret purpose of God as to its application.

Did you follow that? The application, even for the elect of Calvinism, is through the condition of faith; thus if one believes, as Arminians do, that faith is a potentiality for anyone and everyone who hears the gospel (not just the preselected few), then the atonement can truly be seen a available and applicable for the whole world. In other words, its APPLIED through faith in both our systems. It's not applied sometime in the past, thus we can actually be in agreement regarding the nature of the atonement (has Hodge explains) without agreeing on other soteriological points or being universalists.

I agree with pretty much everything Hodge says there, Skandelon.

Your problem is the proverbial glasses you read such statements through.

This is why, as several of us have pointed out to you, that you CANNOT understand Edwards' position on the origin of evil.

 

[Luke2427]

Words do matter, as does their usage. Look up synonyms for "available," and guess what you'll find? "Applicable."

The problem with the usage here is that you discount it because it doesn't fit with calvinistic limited atonement. "Available" does not mean "received" or "achieved," just as "applicable" does not mean "applied."

It may be universally applicable, but that doesn't mean it will be universally applied.

It's a classic paradox question: Is God's grace sufficient for all? If you say yes, then you're implying universalism; if you say no, you're implying God is limited and therefore not omnipotent.

I believe we all agree that the atonement will be applied to only those that believe and have faith.

Two words were used there Don.

available and applicable.

If applicable is supposed to MEAN available then the statement does not make any sense whatsoever.

Obviously the author of that statement meant that is is literally APPLIED to all.

And I BELIEVE AS A CALVINIST that the atonement is sufficient for every single person who will have ever been born throughout the history of this planet and a trillion worlds of sinners like it.

Sufficiency does not in any way imply universalism.

My chickens are laying eggs very productively right now.

I have sufficient numbers of eggs to feed five families.

But I only intend to feed one- my family.

Christ's atonement is sufficient to save a trillion worlds all more densely populated than our own with even greater sinners than we are.

But it is only INTENDED and applicable to his people.

 

[Don]

Two words were used there Don.

available and applicable.

If applicable is supposed to MEAN available then the statement does not make any sense whatsoever.

Obviously the author of that statement meant that is is literally APPLIED to all.

And I BELIEVE AS A CALVINIST that the atonement is sufficient for every single person who will have ever been born throughout the history of this planet and a trillion worlds of sinners like it.

Sufficiency does not in any way imply universalism.

My chickens are laying eggs very productively right now.

I have sufficient numbers of eggs to feed five families.

But I only intend to feed one- my family.

Christ's atonement is sufficient to save a trillion worlds all more densely populated than our own with even greater sinners than we are.

But it is only INTENDED and applicable to his people.

Quantum explained himself in post #78, echoing what you've been writing; in a more recent post, he went on to admit that he could have written it better. Yet you continue to wring the life out of something that's not as you portray it. You're misrepresenting his position, and forcing a viewpoint on him, setting up a strawman with which to argue against non-cals.

 

[Luke2427]

Quantum explained himself in post #78, echoing what you've been writing; in a more recent post, he went on to admit that he could have written it better. Yet you continue to wring the life out of something that's not as you portray it. You're misrepresenting his position, and forcing a viewpoint on him, setting up a strawman with which to argue against non-cals.

No, Don, I am not.

I said from my very first response that quantum probably doesn't adhere to universalism so there is no way that you could sensibly be saying that I am pressing that viewpoint on him.

He admitted it should have been worded better and I have not addressed him about it since.

Right now I am tangled up with you- not him.

 

[Don]

No, Don, I am not.

I said from my very first response that quantum probably doesn't adhere to universalism so there is no way that you could sensibly be saying that I am pressing that viewpoint on him.

He admitted it should have been worded better and I have not addressed him about it since.

Right now I am tangled up with you- not him.

Up to this point, my posts have been a response to your response to Quantum. Since you continue to eschew the usage of both available and applicable in the same sentence, by all means, show me where I've indicated anything other than applied only to those that believe. Otherwise, you'll have to explain what your tangle with me is, as I apparently don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Don]

Went back through some posts; Luke, you're correct, and I've taken this thread down an unnecessary road. My apologies.

 

[Luke2427]

Up to this point, my posts have been a response to your response to Quantum. Since you continue to eschew the usage of both available and applicable in the same sentence, by all means, show me where I've indicated anything other than applied only to those that believe. Otherwise, you'll have to explain what your tangle with me is, as I apparently don't understand what you're getting at.

One last effort.

You seem to be saying that the "applicable to all" is synonymous with "available to all".

I am saying that in that sentence it makes no sense that this could be the case.

Here is why.

The sentence reads "the atonement is both available and applicable to all".

Well if "applicable" is meant as a synonym for "available" then the sentence makes no sense.

It would be like saying "the atonement is available and available for all".

So OBVIOUSLY "applicable" must mean something else besides "available".

I'll give you the last word.

 

[preacher4truth]

I typically don't see your post anymore P4T,

...you don't see them when you do. See?

You're clearly in error, and remain there. I like how you attempted to represent yourself in your aggrandizing thread on how you are so responsible to own up to things that you do.

You and I both know better than this. :smilewinkgrin:

Learn to admit when you're wrong. It shouldn't be hard, you're wrong on nearly every issue you speak on, and you're clearly wrong in stating the Gospel wasn't included in the context of what Aaron gave. Any honest person can see that except you.

Learn to own up as the person your thread painted you to be. OK? Thanks.

*not to mention neither you or your cronies can nor have been able to rebutt or wiggle your way out of the OP. Instead? You've derailed the thread. Something you do often. Congrats. .:thumbsup: I'll remember this next time you belly-ache that I'm doing it to one of yours.

 

[glfredrick]

Then why did you say the gospel 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history?'

Because that is/was precisely the way you were using the term in context -- until I called you on it and you started backpeddling.

When did I use the word magical? I didn't. So once again you are attacking a straw-man by putting words in my mouth. Instead of the word 'magical' why not "...living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

You didn't, I did... And, I did because that is precisely your context. The "words" alone have power. That, my friend, is magic, no matter what else you call it.

Now that I involk the Holy Spirit, who inspired the words and who illumiates the words, and who creates an ACTION based on the words they have the power of God, but the pure words? Nope. Just words until there is an act of God behind them. Otherwise your other contention is precisely correct -- the extra-biblical words, that mention the same things as Scripture, are equally valid -- but they are not because they do not carry with them God (and God's actions).

Or if that is just too long then maybe the word 'supernatural' or 'inspired' or 'enlightening.' But 'magical' would be WRONG, unless you think the Holy Spirit's work in inspiring and carrying His message is magical? Do you? Do you agree its supernatural? And living and active? OR do you still think, as you said before, that 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history?' Which one?

I will remind you that I was arguing for God's actual historical acts behind the words while you were disagreeing. Now that I've explained and involked the Holy Spirit you wish to co-opt my point for yourself. Sorry dude. Your words are out there for all to see. You plainly argued for JUST the words.

Yep. :thumbs: Which is why you were wrong to say his words are 'nothing more than a description of an actual event in history.' I'm glad you see that now.

All along I said that the words were only meaningful BECAUSE they were descriptors of an ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVENT. You disagreed... Now? :smilewinkgrin:

Well, let's think about that statement. Are you saying that someone can hear or read the powerful Holy Spirit inspired truth of the gospel and still be considered 'on his or her own?'

Yup... Happens all the time.

Because if that is what you are saying, then when a man rejects the gospel that is somehow proof that God chose NOT to illuminate it for him then you have just confirmed what I've been saying to Aaron all along in the "Meow Mix" thread. In the Cal system, the reason one person rejects the gospel is because God didn't illuminate it for him. The reason someone doesn't believe is because God doesn't grant them the faith. You have given all unbelievers and those who rebel against the gospel truth the PERFECT excuse. You have elevated humanity from guilty by reason of premeditated willful lawbreakers, to innocent by reason of insanity (inability)....they were born that way and didn't have what they needed to accept it.

Your thought fails becasuse we don't NEED the perfect excuse. We ARE the perfect excuse because we are born in a state of excuse. Man will ALWAYS rebel against God and use any excuse he or she can find. Such is the nature, described accurately by the Calvinists system of doctrine as seen in Scripture, of humans born dead in their sin and trespasses -- separated from God. It was for that purpose that Christ came to "re-birth" us into newness of life and His atonement is our only (ONLY) hope. Not our ability to drum up some faith within us, that is merely religious effort and a counterfeit of the real God-driven regeneration.

My view of man is much much worse than yours. For those who reject God do so in the face of his genuine love and gracious provisions, while in your view they haven't really ever clearly seen or understood and thus have an excuse. (ref. Romans 1)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

No, you merely exemplify what we already know about man... Further, you actually believe that we must somehow dig ourselves a deeper hole. Wrong... We're already doomed, damned, and hopeless before we do a single thing to make what is already the worst possible situation moreso (can one be moreso worse than worst possible situation? Doubt it...).

I guess since your Pelagian accusations didn't stick you need to find another dead theologian to attempt to strap me to huh? That must be easier to do than debate my actual words, right, Joseph Hussey? You kind of sound like him to me...at least I bet I could find something he said that kind of remotely sounds like something you said and since that is the standard around here then it must be true. :laugh:

One's disbelief that they indeed espouse the doctrines of the Pelagian system do not in fact mean that they do not hold those doctrines. Also, I don't recall ever stipulating that YOU are a Pelagian. I may have inquired as to whether you realized that one point or another of your doctrine leaned in that direction, but I have found no cause to label YOU (yet -- keep fighting) as a Pelagian. You still hold (as far as I know, we're still defining terms) that God must move first before a believer can believe, unless you'd like to modify that statement to clarify the position I believe you hold.

 

[Aaron]

Oh the punishment! (But I can't look away!) :tongue3:

 

[Aaron]

You still hold (as far as I know, we're still defining terms) that God must move first before a believer can believe, unless you'd like to modify that statement to clarify the position I believe you hold.

. . . and you will press Scandal in vain for a definition.

 

[quantumfaith]

Pure flatulence.

You must be enjoying the aroma. Mexican last night.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree with pretty much everything Hodge says there, Skandelon.

Ok, for the record then, can you just restate using your own words this part of the quote: "Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed..."

That way I have it on file for the next time you in anyway imply that our belief that God provided judicial satisfaction for every person must mean we are universalists. Thanks.

Oh, and I look forward to how you deal with the AA Hodge quote...but then again, I doubt you will...

 

[Skandelon]

One last effort.

You seem to be saying that the "applicable to all" is synonymous with "available to all".

I am saying that in that sentence it makes no sense that this could be the case.

Here is why.

The sentence reads "the atonement is both available and applicable to all".

Well if "applicable" is meant as a synonym for "available" then the sentence makes no sense.

It would be like saying "the atonement is available and available for all".

So OBVIOUSLY "applicable" must mean something else besides "available".

I'll give you the last word.

How about we give AA Hodge, a Reformed theologian, the last word so you can apologize to everyone for confounding this matter:

"There is no debate among Christians as to the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salvation of all men, however vast the number. This is absolutely limitless. 2d. Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and every possible human sinner who will ever exist. The relation of all to the demands of the law are identical. What would save one would save another. 3d. Nor to the bona fide character of the offer which God has made to 'whomsoever wills' in the gospel. It is applicable to every one, it will infallibly be applied to every believer. 4th. Nor as to its actual application." - AA Hodge

I think that pretty much seals this up. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

You didn't, I did... And, I did because that is precisely your context. The "words" alone have power. That, my friend, is magic, no matter what else you call it.

And yet in that exact same thread you called the words 'inspired by God.' Is that one of those other terms like "magical" in your book, because before it was just a 'historical record.' Still backpeddling I see.

Now that I involk the Holy Spirit, who inspired the words and who illumiates the words, and who creates an ACTION based on the words they have the power of God, but the pure words? Nope.

I'll let Jesus argue this point for me:

"For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure." - Jesus

"The words that I speak to you are spirit and life." - Jesus

“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” - Jesus

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” - Jesus

And Peter...
"Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God"

And Paul...
"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"

"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Just words until there is an act of God behind them.

Just words?! REALLY?! Do you mean to say that these words a not inspired, supernaturally wrought words of God?

Fredrick, even if the HS doesn't do anything MORE than He already did to bring us these words (which by the way, SHOULD be credited as an 'act of God behind them' already) surely you must think of them as more that JUST WORDS! Would you like to back peddle on that now too or are you standing by that statement?

Before we go any further are you saying the inspired scriptures, as they stand, without any EXTRA working of the Holy Spirit are JUST WORDS? JUST a "HISTORICAL RECORD"? POWERLESS?

Is that your view?

And one more question. When you say, "act of God behind them," please tell me what more do you want God to do!?!

1. He sent Christ, God incarnate, to speak in our human language as the WORD.
2. He supernaturally inspired the writings of his teachings and his works for all future generations.
3. He perserved those words bringing about the Canon of Scriptures and protecting them from an onslaught of attack throughout the history of mankind.
4. And he actually indwells, guides, comforts and inspires his own children to go and proclaim 'THESE SAME WORDS' to all nations.

What more does HE need to do for you to consider the words to have God's backing? And what in God's green earth would lead you to conclude that THESE are 'JUST WORDS?'

Wow!!! And Aaron has the nerve to salute that???...wow wow wow....what people are willing to do to win a point in a debate forum. I've seen it all. :tear:

 

[Skandelon]

You still hold (as far as I know, we're still defining terms) that God must move first before a believer can believe, unless you'd like to modify that statement to clarify the position I believe you hold.

I saw that Aaron quoted this so I wanted to respond....in hopes that he might actually listen this time:

God has moved and is still moving as he 'seeks to save that which is lost.' He moves through HIS appointed means, which according to scripture are:

1. The Son (Word): while on earth

2. The Spirit: indwelling believers who spread the word and convicting the world of sin

3. The Scripture: the inspired written words

4. The Church: His Bride, indwelled and sent by the Spirit as ambassadors making the appeal: Be Reconciled to God

5. Other means used to provoke man's will: Envy (Rm 11:14); Signs and Wonders; Circumstances; Hardships...

I see no evidence of an additional secret inward irresistible work by which God moves apart from these means to "magically" change man's will (thus making these means appear inconsequential). He may work THROUGH those means listed above to affect the heart inwardly, but according to what we see in scripture He doesn't work apart from these appointed means.

Take Thomas for example. Could God have just regenerated his heart to make him believe without questioning and wanting to see for himself? Sure. But HE DIDN'T. He revealed himself to Thomas (means) so that He wouldn't doubt and would believe. Could he have magically changed Jonah's desire so he would want to go to Ninveh? Sure. But HE DIDN'T. He used life circumstances. Could he have magically changed Paul desires? Sure. But HE DIDN'T. He used life circumstances. To suggest those circumstances (means) were inconsequential and that some secret inward working of the spirit actually changed their wills is nice and all, but scripture doesn't teach that. It actually speaks of the means has having the power. I'll stick with scripture.

 

[glfredrick]

Ok, for the record then, can you just restate using your own words this part of the quote: "Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed..."

That way I have it on file for the next time you in anyway imply that our belief that God provided judicial satisfaction for every person must mean we are universalists. Thanks.

Oh, and I look forward to how you deal with the AA Hodge quote...but then again, I doubt you will...

Have you supplied the page number reference that I asked for earlier?

I'd like to see if Hodge has one of those, "therefore" statements after this part of what he wrote.