Arminian God cruel and arbitrary

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Bro Tony;
I would agree that Hunt can get rather wordy. Most of what he said from "What love is this" I haven't found any problems with except for objections from the Calvinist themselves.

In order for a man to prove His point about scripture, he should IMHO be confined to scripture and not to his own logic or made up definitions. Myself I do my best to rely on the reasoning of God's Word. I have often have found things there that I admit, I wish weren't the way they were but who am I to question the authority of God. We are conformed to His image not Him conformed to ours.

The ancient Greek word;
proorizô to determine beforehand, to predetermine, pre-ordain, plan Entry in LSJ or Middle Liddell.
Is translated as "predestined' in English You will notice that the definition above in the Greek this word is not unalterable as Calvinist are quick to point out for the definition for "predestine" in English.
To assign such a meaning from English to an original word written in ancient Greek is improper to say the least. To say God never changes a plan well God doesn't change but His plans are not Him.
I believe we are all created for righteousness not for destruction. If man is destroyed it is man's fault, not God's.
I also believe that man is a free in that he is able to make decisions and does. How ever no man can come to God without being drawn but then God draws all men to him since He is lifted up.
I don't believe man goes to hell because of his sin but because of unbelief. Sin can be forgiven by Christ but if you die in your unbelief without repentance you will go to Hell.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Bro Tony]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for sharing, you have put it just the way I feel. I know that others do not agree, but such is the nature of the debate forum. I appreciate the way the Lord has used you to verbalize these things, I also appreciate that you like me refuse to take on a label by which we must look at Scripture. I believe we should let the Scripture speak for Itself, rather than confine it to a particular man-made theology.

God Bless

Bro Tony

 

[Paul33]

Tony,

I wasn't suggesting that you were an Arminian. I merely asked if you had a solution to the question that no one on this thread seems to want to answer.

Mike,

Romans 1 and 2 doesn't address the issue of "How do I get saved?" It addresses the issue of "How will I be judged?" The answer is, we all stand condemned already. No one is without excuse.

Obviously, that's not the problem my question addresses.

Everyone is lost. Now the Arminians teach that we don't have to remain lost. We can hear the gospel and respond in faith!

Hallelujah!

Now how is God being fair and impartial to the billions of people who have never heard the gospel?

 

[Ray Berrian]

I agree that Catholic doctrine in preaching is more like Arminian Protestants than back in Augustine's time. Just think, maybe some of us are actually listening to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, while other people merely repeat the doctrines of men like Calvin. The Catholics at least have taken one step forward and closer to what our Lord is saying in His Word. Centuries ago R.C.'s were clearly more Augustinian/Calvinistic.

I did not need to read Mr. Hunt's book, "What Love Is This", to form my theology. I have studied mega years in formal settings and throughout my life. I was just pleased to read a man who believes exactly as I do. I think Mr. Hunt is saying there is no love toward sinners, except the 'chosen frozen' in the mind of un-Biblical scholars. I John 2:2 shows the far reaching aspect of the Lord's love toward all sinners and not just toward those who become the elect.

In my past post I used two of the most prominent Greek scholars and yet you guys merely 'blow them off.' Do you ever listen to scholarship other than men and women who are scholars who believe as yourself?

Last Sunday I attended an Italian R.C. church because my father-in-law cannot drive. The priest preached the Gospel saying that anyone can come to Christ if they are willing to turn from the sins, (repentance) and believe in Jesus. He also had literature in the bulletin on selecting a pro-life candidate plus he preached about what a true family really is all about. One man and one woman in marriage as related to voting politically as the people of God. Of course, I would not agree with their other doctrines that do blur the true Gospel.

I find that Calvinists hate Mr. Hunt because he says things like they should be said as a teacher. There is no re-interpreting words to patch up Calvinism's gaping holes.

 

[Paul33]

We agree completely Ray,

Everyone can come to Christ if they are willing to turn from their sins!

When I preach I invite everyone to repent of their sins and turn to Jesus in faith!

But you still haven't addressed the short-coming of Arminianism. "What Love Is This?" is just as easily directed to Arminians.

What good is free-will if you don't get an opportunity to use it? What kind of love requires hearing the gospel to be saved, and then withholds that hearing to billions?

Why can't you answer this, Ray?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Since Hunt's book has (unfortunately) come up again, I want to remind everyone of the thorough exposure of Hunt's theology and methods in this review article. This article should be enough to forever put Hunt on the trash pile. It was a shameful attempt, riddled with misunderstanding, bad logic, and bad exegesis. It should not be taken seriously by anyone.

http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/5-4.htm

 

[GeneMBridges]

In my past post I used two of the most prominent Greek scholars and yet you guys merely 'blow them off.' Do you ever listen to scholarship other than men and women who are scholars who believe as yourself?

Ray, with all due respect, sometimes when you do quote Greek scholars, like A.T. Robertson, in support of your position, you are doing the same thing as Hunt does, because those same scholars hold positions contrary to your own (Robertson, in fact, is just such a scholar). Hunt does this frequently in the book from which you quote. That is why I keep telling you to go and look at the sources that this book, which you declare to be "without error," uses.


Time after time, Southern, in particular, will go to the lexical sources themselves and offer his own exegesis and not just what others that support him have said. Your exegesis is often circular, arguing the premise. I don't always agree exactly with Southern. For example, in the thread on 1 John 2:2, I stand by my own exegesis, which incorporates his own view, but I think that the key to understanding the verse lies in the overall occasion of the letter itself and not a particular view of the atonement. On the other hand, you seem to assume the atonement is unlimited and proceed from there. Mike assumes the atonement is potential and not at all actual (which differs from what you believe, somewhat, I think) and interprets the verse in line with his own preconceptions. As I pointed out to him, 1 John 5:18 and 19 offers the same linguistic references and if both of your interpretations of 2:2 are remotely correct, then both Christians and nonChristians are actually subjegated to the wicked one or the subjegation of us all is not actual at all and is potential, which contradicts what you believe about 2:2. Those are basic exegetical errors that you guys never address.

You claim consistently that our view of election is arbitrary, and time and time again, I point you to the dictionary definition of "arbitrary," which you yourselves say is correct and show you without even referencing koine Greek how meritless your objection is, yet you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over as if you never heard it. It's almost as if you say, "Yes, I know what the definition says and I know what you teach, but..." and then proceed as if you have never said anything.

How, using the defintion of the word arbitrary can God be arbitrary if, in fact, election is done with a purpose. To say that, you have believe that God uses random chance and is not using some kind of fixed ground in Himself. All we teach is that God does not anchor election in anything we do for Him; His reasons are in Himself. It is purposeful and, therefore, not random. This is what we teach. You say that is arbitrary and quote just part of the dictionary definition of the word to support your position. I mean, how many times can you repeat the same basic errors in our own language, not to mention the same rational errors? If you all would quit using straw men, quoting persons that hold views opposite to you as if they support you, and just get what we teach correct from the start, we could have a much more meaningful interaction, yet you do exactly what Hunt does and make the same kinds of meritless, mistaken, circular, rhetorical objections over and over. You, in particular, having a Th.M. should know better, Ray.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Paul33;
Maybe you didn't read my post at the third from the top on page 6. You're question was for evanglicals and Arminians wasn't it?
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

Paul 33,

'Why can't you answer this, Ray?'

I do not think that we want to blame Almighty God for not reaching sinners with the Gospel. We have His Word and it is our responsibility, right where we are, to share God's plan of salvation to everyone near us. I think you will agree with Jesus here in Mark 16:15. ' . . . every creature.' (person)

Are our military personel who are Christians sharing the truth of John 3:16 to people nearest them. My guess is that for the most part they do not speak of Jesus most wonderful grace. Do our American businessmen and women share the truth of Jesus? Those who do not verbally witness to the truth of Jesus will be held accountable when they stand before the Lord. There are other ways to witness to our faith than verbally, obviously. God can work wherever His message is preached. If every Christian would have witnessed to the faith, multiple millions of sinners would have been brought into the Kingdom. Let's not point our finger against God; we need to personally get involved in getting the message out.

I have a Scripture on a piece of paper that deals with those who have never heard. Another brother used it and already explained in perhaps months ago. I'll keep looking. I cannot think of a key word that would lead me to it.

Surely those who have never heard, will not be judged as severely as those who have repeatedly rejected Christ, time after time, after time under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. [Matthew 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47] Three out of four of the Gospels suggest that there will be various degrees of punishment for those who end up in Hell.

The Prophet Ezekiel 3:18-19 reminds us that if we are not actively witness about Jesus we will be in trouble at the Judgment Seat of Christ, a judgment that is only for the saints. The Apostle John in his first epistle reminds us that some Christians ' . . . will be ashamed to stand before the Lord at His coming for His people.' [2:28]

Do the 1% of Christians in most of the Muslim countries witness about Jesus amazing grace? Some probably do; many without doubt do not share Christ with Muslims because of an inner fear.

Our ministry is to witness to all sinners [Mark 16:15] not the alleged preselected elect ones, those favored ones. Remember: ' . . . every creature.'

 

[Paul33]

Thanks Ray,

So a nonbeliever has to go to hell because a Christian didn't do his job of witnessing. How fair is that?

So nonbelievers go to hell, not necessarily for their own sin, but the sin of someone else who disobeyed God in witnessing?

Wow! And this is God's plan! He knew people wouldn't witness and he set it up like this, anyway! If this is true, then God really is cruel.

I can hear God now. "Hey, don't get mad at me, Mr. Unbeliever. It's Fred's fault. He's the one who didn't tell you the gospel."

Small comfort for Mr. Unbeliever, when he's burning in hell for eternity.

I'm not trying to be facetious.

So after Mr. Unbeliever objects to God about how unfair it is to have to go to hell because Fred didn't tell him the gospel, God says, "I'll tell you what, let me make it up to you. Instead of really suffering hard, I'll make your suffering a little easier. How's that sound?"

This makes God either incompetent in his ability to get the offer of salvation to everyone, or unloving, because he knew it would happen this way and didn't care enough to make it fair.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Thanks Ray,

So a nonbeliever has to go to hell because a Christian didn't do his job of witnessing. How fair is that?

So nonbelievers go to hell, not necessarily for their own sin, but the sin of someone else who disobeyed God in witnessing?

Wow! And this is God's plan! He knew people wouldn't witness and he set it up like this, anyway! If this is true, then God really is cruel.

I can hear God now. "Hey, don't get mad at me, Mr. Unbeliever. It's Fred's fault. He's the one who didn't tell you the gospel."

Small comfort for Mr. Unbeliever, when he's burning in hell for eternity.

I'm not trying to be facetious.

So after Mr. Unbeliever objects to God about how unfair it is to have to go to hell because Fred didn't tell him the gospel, God says, "I'll tell you what, let me make it up to you. Instead of really suffering hard, I'll make your suffering a little easier. How's that sound?"

This makes God either incompetent in his ability to get the offer of salvation to everyone, or unloving, because he knew it would happen this way and didn't care enough to make it fair.

Do you not understand that sin has nothing do to with salvation? Jesus Atoned for sin, paid the penalty so that all that man can do is believe or not believe. One does not need the written word of God to know there is a God and to have faith in God. God makes sure that every person knows He exists. It is then up to the person to believe and be saved through faith. The fact that someone doesn't believe is no excuse any more that "ignorance of the Law" is an excuse. Jesus when crucified went to the place where the dead are, and preached the Gospel to them, those who believed were saved. Do you not think God goes to where the unbeliever is alive in the natural realm and makes himself known to them?

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Do you really think that God who made all is not concerned with each out of all?

 

[Paul33]

I won't address the obvious problem with your statement: "Jesus Atoned for sin, paid the penalty so that all that man can do is believe or not believe." Apparently he atoned for all sin except the sin of unbelief. But that's a different thread.

Acts 4:12 - "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

That name is Jesus! Unless a person hears the gospel, he cannot be saved.

So you are proposing what Clark Pinnock teaches. That those who have never heard the gospel in this life will get an opportunity to accept or reject when they stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgement.

Is that the Arminian solution to the problem of the billions who have never heard?

That God will appear to them in some way, and if not, they will get a second chance after death?

Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Wes Outwest]

No, you are not understanding me, you are speaking from an undefensible position. That of not knowing the whole truth. Keep reading.

I won't address the obvious problem with your statement: "Jesus Atoned for sin, paid the penalty so that all that man can do is believe or not believe." Apparently he atoned for all sin except the sin of unbelief. But that's a different thread.

Perhaps you haven't read Jeremiah.

The IS condition:

[Jer 31:30] But each will die for his own guilt. Everyone who eats unripe grapes will have his own teeth set on edge.

The promise of a new covenant and what it will be like. The WILL BE Condition: (and is now since Jesus)

[Jer 31:31-34]`Look, the days are coming, Yahweh declares, when I shall make a new covenant with the House of Israel (and the House of Judah), but not like the covenant I made with their ancestors the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, a covenant which they broke, even though I was their Master, Yahweh declares. No, this is the covenant I shall make with the House of Israel when those days have come, Yahweh declares. Within them I shall plant my Law, writing it on their hearts. Then I shall be their God and they will be my people.
There will be no further need for everyone to teach neighbour or brother, saying, "Learn to know Yahweh!" No, they will all know me, from the least to the greatest, Yahweh declares, since I shall forgive their guilt and never more call their sin to mind.'

Jesus came unto his own and his own received him NOT! So what did he do? He opened himself, and this "new covenent, up to all mankind through his apostles, at least two of whom were directed to the gentiles. Peter and Paul, but, it is known that others also went to the gentiles.

Please notice that God writes his laws on the heart and those who receive him become his. Yes, whosoever believeth on Him should not persish but have everlasting life.

Unbelief is not sin! It is a condition of spirit!
Likewise Belief is a condition of spirit!

 

[Paul33]

Like I said, that's a different thread. Start it, please.

My question for this thread deals with the following:

Acts 4:12 - "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

That name is Jesus! Unless a person hears the gospel, he cannot be saved.

So you are proposing what Clark Pinnock teaches. That those who have never heard the gospel in this life will get an opportunity to accept or reject when they stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgement.

Is that the Arminian solution to the problem of the billions who have never heard?

That God will appear to them in some way, and if not, they will get a second chance after death?

Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[BobRyan]

No that is not the Arminian solution.

The Arminian solution is found in Romans 10 and in Romans 2.

There we find the witness of nature and there we find the work of the Holy Spirit on those with no Bible at all.

The God who "draws ALL mankind to Himself" does it effectively --

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
No that is not the Arminian solution.


The God who "draws ALL mankind to Himself" does it effectively --

In Christ,

Bob

Not unless you're a universalist or you're somehow redefining what "effectively" means, Bob You do not believe in efficacous drawing, our you would be a Calvinist.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
How is uncondtional election unjust if God's wrath is satisfied for some at the cross and others in hell? Justice is satisfied.

Already shown in the Calvinist future scenario posted on this thread.

GeneMB

You say that it is unjust because God is not electing everyone. That only works if Jesus really did pay for everybody's sins

Wrong - the only thing that is needed to show Calvinism describes God as "unjust" is to show that the Bible has God claiming that "HE is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" and then to observe that Calvinism claims that in fact "God does nothing" to back that all inclusive claim up.

When God says He provides in Christ "The Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT FOR our sins ONLY but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" Calvinism says - "oh no he does not!".

Calvinism DESCRIBES Him as unjust. (At least 4 and 5 pt Calvinism does).

The Calvinist future scenario posted here exposes the unjust view of God painted by 4 and 5 point Calvinists.

The Arminian future scenario subjects the doctrines of grace in the Arminian model to that SAME test and SHOWS how it described God as loving and Merciful.

This is obvious.

And the question about God "being able" to reach the lost who have not had access to scripture - was answered in the previous post.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
No that is not the Arminian solution.


The God who "draws ALL mankind to Himself" does it effectively --

In Christ,

Bob

Not unless you're a universalist or you're somehow redefining what "effectively" means, Bob You do not believe in efficacous drawing, our you would be a Calvinist. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Calvinism is that which "redefines effective" not the Arminian position.

In John 1 Christ is said to be the light that coming into the world - enlightens EVERY MAN.

Calvinism argument would charge that this is not really efficient or effective SINCE the same chapter says "but men loved darkness rather than light".

In other Words - God giving man free will - is used by Calvinism to charge God with the blame for man's failures as "if" bad choices on our part makes God "ineffecient" or "ineffective".

Arminians would never take such a leap into the night. You have used a circular argument by inserting the Calvinist argument on "effective" and "effecient" into the Arminian position - AS IF Arminians ever accepted the Calvinist definition.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul33]

Bob,

Romans 10 makes it abundantly clear that no one can believe unless they hear the gospel from a preacher, one sent to them to preach! Romans 10:14-17

Romans 10:18-21 does not teach that the Holy Spirit preaches the gospel to those who haven't heard.

It teaches that Israel heard and disbelieved (Romans 10:18-19, 21). It teaches that God will reveal himself to those who weren't looking for him (Romans 10:20)! And how does God reveal himself to people who aren't looking for him? Through preachers who are sent to preach the Good News (Romans 10:15).

I hope you aren't saying that God doesn't need preachers because he will sovereignly reveal himself to the lost. That would be God overruling man's free will to witness. And that would be God over-ruling man who isn't looking for him. And that would be God over-ruling the plain teaching of Romans 10:14-15.

There is only one way in Scripture for non-believers to hear the gospel, respond in faith, and believe. And that is if someone is sent to them to preach the Good News!

Now, billions of people will never hear the gospel message. They will never have the opportunity to exercise their faith! This is the cruelty of the Arminian system. Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (which I believe), and then doesn't give most of that world an opportunity to hear the gospel. That is unfair and unloving. And I don't see any way around it, unless one also believes in:

universalism
open theism
chance after death
direct witness by Holy Spirit

None of which can be proved by Scripture or would be considered orthodox.

[ November 07, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Paul33]

Or:

In the mind of God, before he creates anything,

God knows that:

All will be lost because of Adam's sin.
No one will be able to save himself.
God must provide a solution for man's sin problem.
Christ will be lifted up on the cross drawing all men to himself.
Some (potential persons in the mind of God) will resist the drawing of Christ.
The rest (potential persons in the mind of God)will be found in Christ through no merit of their own.
Those in Christ will be chosen by God.
Those not in Christ will be passed over.
God then decrees to create the universe!
The elect will hear the gospel message and respond in faith, having been born from above.
Others will hear the gospel message and harden their hearts.
Still others will never hear the gospel and be lost because they are not the elect and would not have responded in faith even if they had heard.

You may disagree with this, because I admit I am speculating on what took place in the mind of God. But one thing I know for sure. The lost are those who persist in their rejection of God.

What I do know from Scripture is that the elect are chosen according to foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2) before the foundation of the world according to the kind intention (purpose) of God (Eph. 1).