Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction!

[William C]

Scott, my questions are not related to any of these issues. They are follow up questions in response to your comments concerning hardening. This is very frustrating, but quite expected, I had much the same reaction as you are now to these difficult questions. So, I will continue to persist on.

Scott, imagine if you were in a court of law as a defendant who was being charged with a crime you didn't commit. The "premise" of the prosecutor would be that you are guilty of this crime. Right? Would you refuse to answer or clarify your previous statements merely because their original premise is incorrect? Of couse not, that would just make you seem more guilty. You would clarify and explain your premise rather than continually just saying, "I disagree with your premise that I'm guilty," as if that answers the questions.

You are just diverting and I know you know it. And you know that I know you know it.

Just tell me how you explain UNDER YOUR PREMISE that hardening is a process which occurs during one's lifetime when Calvinist teach that the same thing occurs from birth.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:


Scott, imagine if you were in a court of law as a defendant who was being charged with a crime you didn't commit. The "premise" of the prosecutor would be that you are guilty of this crime. Right? Would you refuse to answer or clarify your previous statements merely because their original premise is incorrect? Of couse not, that would just make you seem more guilty. You would clarify and explain your premise rather than continually just saying, "I disagree with your premise that I'm guilty," as if that answers the questions.

To draw on your analogy- Imagine that I am innocent but being prosecuted for murder.

The prosecutor asks, "What kind of gun did you use to kill this person?"

I am not going to say "a .38". I am going to say "I wasn't there and didn't fire a gun."

If they ask, "What did he do to anger you enough to kill him?"

I am not going to say "He made a pass at my wife." I am going to say "I didn't kill him." Even if he did make a pass at my wife, by answering the question built on a false premise I acknowledge something that is true (the pass) but with direct implications that are false (the murder).

The same it is with your "prosecution" here. Your questions are built on the supposition that I accept the same premises that you accept... and as frustrating as it might be for you each time you ask me a question that presumes something untrue, I am going to disagree with the premise rather than passively acknowledging the premise by answering.

Thank you for bringing this up. This illustrates my objections very well.

 

[npetreley]

Bill, my recommendation is to take one of three actions:

1. Focus on the truth instead of debate tricks.

2. Learn some new debate tricks, since the ones you've been using aren't working anymore.

3. Move to another board that hasn't figured you out yet.

 

[William C]

But Scott if the prosecutors questions are based on you answers and not on their premise, as were mine, then this makes no since.

If the prosecutor asks, "Where were you on the night in question?"

You reply, "I was at home alone."

He then askes, "What were you doing at home alone."

And you say, "I don't agree with your premise! I did not kill that person! I'm not answering your questions."

This is exactly what you are doing to me. You say that hardening means this or that and I respond with a clarifing question that you refuse to answer. Take anyone of my questions that were in response to you and show me what premise you don't accept.

Even in your reply to the prosecutor who askes you what kind of gun you used, you told them what premise you disagreed with in regard to the question. You did'nt even do that for me. If I ask a question that seems to assume a premise tell me what it is instead of just saying, "I don't agree with your premise."

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Bill, my recommendation is to take one of three actions:

1. Focus on the truth instead of debate tricks.

2. Learn some new debate tricks, since the ones you've been using aren't working anymore.

3. Move to another board that hasn't figured you out yet.

Nick, God loves you and I love you.

 

[The Archangel]

Bill,

I just saw this....

Forgiveness of sins is conditional

In the Lord's Prayer; receiving forgiveness from from God is joined to forgiving others (Matt. 6:12; Lk 11:4). Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant makes the point that human beings are obliged to forgive because God has forgiven them (Matt. 18:23-35). God's forgivness is actually said to be conditional upon forgiving others (Matt. 6:14; 18:35; Mk 11:25-26; Lk 6:37)

If God forgiving us is conditional on us forgiving others, how is that grace? Why does this not degenerate into a business transaction between us and God?

If we forgive and therefore God forgives us then our forgivness is based on our work, not His grace.

Would you please speak to this?

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[William C]

Angel,

Great question, and I appreciate the demeanor in which it was approached. That is rare in these here parts.

Look at the story of the Master and the servant who owed him a great deal of money. He begs for mercy and the master grants it. Then, he goes out and beats up his buddy because he owes him a very small debt. What happen to the man when the Master found out? His orginal mercy was removed and he was thrown into prison.

Now, I understand the desire to explain this passage away by saying that someone who doesn't forgive was really never forgiven. That's fine if you want to teach that, but that's not what Christ taught in this parable. He taught that the man was shown mercy and then because of his lack of mercy toward others his mercy was removed, plain and simple. Maybe God did intend for us to feel secure in our salvation regardless of our behavior, but it's not taught in my bible.

Notice Angel that this parable doesn't say that the Master granted mercy because the servant was himself merciful to others. It teaches that the mercy remains conditional upon if you show mercy to others. Thus it's conditional. Like the many passages that teach "those who perservere to the end will be saved." Calvinists like to explain those real quick but the authors of scripture don't. They are not quick to say, "because those who perservere are those who were elect." Why not? Because it's obvious that the authors are trying to inspire obedience instead of complacency, which btw is the mark of the modern church.

Maybe there is the revealed truth, then a secret hidden truth that explains that it's not what it seems, but personally I think that kind of hermeneutics is dangerous. If Christ didn't want the believers to doubt their salvation because of this parable of the master and the servant he would have explained that "true believers" can't really ever lose their mercy because they will always forgive others. Do we want to add that to this parable for Christ and take away its entire thrust.

This parable makes no sense if the mercy wasn't actually given to the servant. And it loses its meaning if you take away the fact that his mercy was removed and he was punished.

So I do believe grace is offered to all man unconditionally, meaning that man didn't have to do anything or be anything special to recieve the invitation. But grace does not seem to remain unconditionally. The bible seems to indicate you can be cut off after being grafted in (Rom. 11), that you can be hardened in sin even after being saved (Heb. 3-6), and that mercy will remain as long as your merciful to others.

How do you deal with these passages? And those I've listed in the previous post concerning forgiveness?

 

[Eric B]

I think the answer to this is that this statement was before Christ died and the plan of salvation was finished. They were still technically in the Old Covenant or dispensation of Law. So just like the Law had its commandments and said that "The soul that sins shall die", Christ is here warning us what refusal to forgive deserves. But since we are in the age of grace, He does not take away their forgiveness, but they are reminded that they are living by grace, and should not take advantage and continue to sin (thus trampling on grace). They should repent, which would include coming to Him and asking for forgiveness. Since that is where he offended in the first place, how humbling and convicting that all the more becomes!

 

[William C]

Eric, I guess I could see what you are saying but your interpretation obviously undermines the intention that Christ had in sharing this with his audience. He obviously was teaching them that not forgiving others had the consequence of having you forgiveness removed. Your interpretation removes that possiblity by saying that we are not operating under a system of law but one of mercy (or Grace), which is the very issue this parable is addressing.

Jesus is speaking about receiving unmerited mercy from a master that would have been just in punishing this servant. That has nothing to do with the system of Law. The servant hadn't strived to earn his forgiveness from the master, he just pleaded for it, and it was granted. He lost it only after he was unwilling to show that same mercy to others on a much smaller scale.

If this parable was about a master asking the servant to work in the field to earn his "mercy" then you might have a valid point, but as it stands I just don't think you can conclusively apply a parable that describes unmerited mercy as meant for the system of the law.

 

[Eric B]

But then think about it. Have you ever not forgiven someone, or held resentment to someone? Does a person lose his forgiveness everytime he falls into this? That seems to be the only way to understand that passage without teaching we lose or maintain our salvation by works.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Eric B:
But then think about it. Have you ever not forgiven someone, or held resentment to someone? Does a person lose his forgiveness everytime he falls into this? That seems to be the only way to understand that passage without teaching we lose or maintain our salvation by works.

It's one thing to have to work through the resentment of forgiving someone who has wronged you and to just blantantly doing as this servant did acting in resentment by trying to strangle them and throw them into prison. This servant obviously made no attempt to forgive and because of this his mercy was removed.

Is it possible that Christ's intent was to say that the master's mercy was not really given to the unforgiving servant in the first place? I can't see how you could come to that conclusion without doing great damage to the text. The whole purpose of Christ's telling this parable seems to be as motivation to strike the fear of God within those who have already received mercy. He does this by clearly demonstrating to them that "if they don't forgive they will not be forgiven." That sounds like a condition to me. I don't know about you Eric, but I'm not going to risk giving those God has intrusted under my care a false sense of security by teaching that their eternity is secure if they are failing to forgive others--especially when the text is so clear on the matter.

Is it possible that your interpretation is correct and that this is only an analogy to describe those who have gone away from us and therefore were never of us. (as is the common defense)

Yes. That is possible, but Christ in this context does not make that distinction and neither will I. If I'm teaching and I use this parable, I refuse to qualify it saying, "But this won't happen to true Christians, because we all know that once your saved your always saved." Why? Christ didn't qualify it in that way. To do so undercuts the intent of his message, which is to strike fear in those who are apparent followers of Christ. Something that is desprately lacking in the modern day church.

BTW, when I visited Russia a few years ago I noticed a stark difference in the commitment level of the membership in the churches where we ministered. We were in about 50 different churches while we were their and everyone of the churches we attended ran higher numbers in attendance than was on their roles and many of them travelled hours by bus or train to get to their church. Most were living in very humble homes and didn't hesitate to give up anything they had to help another. I learned that every church we had visited was Arminian in its teachings, and I'm not just talking about the quasi 3 or 4 points, they believed they could lose their salvation and I could tell by talking with them that they really feared this. At the time I was Calvinistic in my beliefs so I really looked down on their "ignorance" and pitied them because they lived in such fear of God.

But since that time I have seen that the fear of God should be the mark of every believer. This is why many of the first believers were called, "God fearers."

The Calvinistic system doesn't strike fear and the quasi Arminian view that teaches "eternal security" doesn't strike fear either, yet the scripture does and I think that is significant.

 

[Eric B]

Is it possible that your interpretation is correct and that this is only an analogy to describe those who have gone away from us and therefore were never of us. (as is the common defense)

Actually, that was not my defense. I had said that Christ was pointing out what such people deserved, as much of scripture shows what man deserves. But those who believe in Christ do not get what they deserve.

If I'm teaching and I use this parable, I refuse to qualify it saying, "But this won't happen to true Christians, because we all know that once your saved your always saved." Why? Christ didn't qualify it in that way. To do so undercuts the intent of his message, which is to strike fear in those who are apparent followers of Christ. Something that is desprately lacking in the modern day church.

BTW, when I visited Russia a few years ago I noticed a stark difference in the commitment level of the membership in the churches where we ministered. We were in about 50 different churches while we were their and everyone of the churches we attended ran higher numbers in attendance than was on their roles and many of them travelled hours by bus or train to get to their church. Most were living in very humble homes and didn't hesitate to give up anything they had to help another. I learned that every church we had visited was Arminian in its teachings, and I'm not just talking about the quasi 3 or 4 points, they believed they could lose their salvation and I could tell by talking with them that they really feared this.

The church tried using fear years ago, and all that ultimately led to was revolt. It may seem to preserve piety for a while, but it is a carnal form of manipulation and it will fall eventually. Because anybody can go through the motions of what you mentioned, but once again, where do you draw the line in which you maintain or lose your salvation? OK, I can have resentment, but if I openly persecute someone who has wronged me, then I am in danger. Christ shows in Matthew 7 that these two things are the same to God. And people get tired in a system where they cannot know for sure they are saved, and either give up and live any way they feel ("what's the use? I don't know whether I'm making it or not anyway?") or just presume they are doing good enough.
We are to fear God because of who He is, not because of what He will do to us. (for then we are acting as if we were not justified at all) Fear in that case is just due reverence, not being "afraid". We love Him for what He has done and will do for us, and true love casts out fear. The scriptures are offering warnings, not trying to terrify everyone into obedience; they are warning that persisting in sin offends the God we supposedly love, and He saved us from sin, not so that we could continue in sin.

The Calvinistic system doesn't strike fear and the quasi Arminian view that teaches "eternal security" doesn't strike fear either, yet the scripture does and I think that is significant.

Read Calvin, Edwards and Spurgeon, and see if they don't strike fear. Since the Calvinist position has clauses in it regarding "perseverance to the end", and even that God gives many non-elect people a false faith, that too motivates people to do works to prove they are elect. Many Calvinists are saying the same thing as you; that they have to avoid this false sense of security, and they speculate that their churches are full of "tares".

There are various scriptures that make it appear that salvation can be lost, and I have not completely answered all of them to myself. I read Charles Stanley's book on the subject, which answers them, but some do seem a bit far fetched. But if it is possible to lose salvation, I believe it would only be from deliberately walking away from Christ. Not because you didn't do something enough. The warnings in that case might be if you backslide too much, you may eventually renounce Christ. But it's not the sliding itself that puts you out of the faith, any more than doing the works gets or keeps you saved.
Even though we do not want to encourage backsliding, unforgiveness or any other sin, still, we must not come up with some pragmatic method of keeping people good that distorts the Gospel.

(Wow, you've only been on 2 months, and youve flown past the number of posts I've made in almost 2 years!)

 

[William C]

The church tried using fear years ago, and all that ultimately led to was revolt. It may seem to preserve piety for a while, but it is a carnal form of manipulation and it will fall eventually. Because anybody can go through the motions of what you mentioned, but once again, where do you draw the line in which you maintain or lose your salvation? OK, I can have resentment, but if I openly persecute someone who has wronged me, then I am in danger. Christ shows in Matthew 7 that these two things are the same to God. And people get tired in a system where they cannot know for sure they are saved, and either give up and live any way they feel ("what's the use? I don't know whether I'm making it or not anyway?") or just presume they are doing good enough.
We are to fear God because of who He is, not because of what He will do to us. (for then we are acting as if we were not justified at all) Fear in that case is just due reverence, not being "afraid". We love Him for what He has done and will do for us, and true love casts out fear. The scriptures are offering warnings, not trying to terrify everyone into obedience; they are warning that persisting in sin offends the God we supposedly love, and He saved us from sin, not so that we could continue in sin.

Sorry, I just went back and found this and I wanted to reply to one point here.

Fear, as in being afraid, is a motivator of the first century church whether you like it or not. The apostles and Christ himself say some very fearfilling comments and they don't just provoke reference as you assert, they provoke that "trembling, scary, don't let that happen to me," kind of fear.

Look at the story of Ananias and Sapharia who drop dead for lying and how great fear came upon the people. Do you think that was mere reverence. I won't waist time listing the many other passages that speak of fear, I'm sure you have a concordance, but you can clearly see that fear (as in being afraid) is a motivator for the audience of scripture.

I also agree that there is no fear in love. I believe that fear in an initial motivator to obeidence, but that eventually the motivator should shift to love.

My children began obeying me because they feared the rod of correction (and that wasn't a fear of reference I assure you

) Later however they obeyed out of love and gratitude (at least I like to think so). As adults they don't need the threat of a spanking to keep them from lying to me, hopefully the motive of love would be enough. So, while fear may motivate initially, I agree that it is replaced with love.

This is one of the reasons I believe removing the fearful teachings of the scripture only does damage to the cause of Christ. This parable in question struck fear in the lives of those who thought they were forgiven by God but who were unforgiving of others. Our doctrine shouldn't attempt to soften or explain away that fear lest we give false security to "weaker" brethern or those who don't yet know the Lord.

I hope that clarifies my position on the subject.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, there may have been genuine fear in people upon hearing the truth. But it was a natural result, not something the apostles tried to conjure up by intentionally focusing on the fearful aspects of the truth, nor by distorting it in a way that would compromise salvation by grace alone.
Ananias and Sapphira, for instance, fell dead due to their own conviction by the Holy Spirit; it was not Peter who struck them down (As Calvin, justifying his execution of Servetus rationalized ).
I'm not suggesting "removing the fearful teachings of the scripture" or "softening or explaining away that fear lest we give false security to 'weaker' brethern or those who don't yet know the Lord", but we must keep it in balance. I still think it is dangerous to say that if you blatantly fail to forgive someone, then you lose forgiveness, eternally.
Something else that should have been mentioned; since we do still sin after forgiveness and God can either punish (up to and including death- 1 Cor.11:30) or forgive those sins temporally, then this can also be referring to temporal forgiveness. But we can't say that God will revoke our eternal forgiveness on an incidental basis, and then say "we must preach this to motivate people by fear".

 

[William C]

Eternal and temporal forgiveness of God???

I'm not fimiliar with this. How does God forgive temporarily?

Please explain and give examples if you can. Thanks

 

[romanbear]

Hi Eric B;
We wouldn't want to fear God that's not Love. When your daddy told you not to do something did you do it anyway because he wouldn't punish you?.

Fear of God, is the fear of what he can do to you for not obeying. There is nothing else to fear about God. He is the ultimate Master of absolute authority to punish you as He see's fit. Should we be bold enough to test Him?.
Romanbear

 

[Eric B]

We're saved from eternal punishment because of the forgiveness we receive because of Christ's payment for our sins. This is eternal, as it determines our eternal destiny. But we still sin after being saved, and He can still punish us here for those sins (as Romanbear is pointing out), or if we repent, He can forgive them. This has nothing to do with our eternal destiny (perhaps how much rewards we receive or are burned up, not not heaven or hell), so for lack of better terms, I called it "temporal".

 

[William C]

So, in the parable of the master and the servant. The master represents God and the servant represents us. And you believe that the "great debt" the servant has been forgiven merely represents God's temporal forgiveness of our sins after we have already been forgiven unto salvation? That's seems like a stretch from the context, don't you think?

 

[Eric B]

The great debt was all of his sin atoned for at the Cross, but the punishment in v.34-5 is not necessarily eternal. (notice it is different from what was originally planned in v.25, even though harsh) Once again, I think He is just showing us the graveness of the offense, but while God may not revoke forgiveness, He can inflict strict measures in this life, which in that sense would sort of parallel the judgment he deserves. This is how it has to be understood, else salvation is by performance.