Can An Arminian Be OSAS?

[JonShaff]

Brother Jon,

Now that I answered your questions in my prior posts. Here are questions for you to answer that I posed to Brother Steaver who has a similar belief to yours in that he does not believe people prior to the cross were born again (he did not answer my questions, hopefully you will)-If people prior to the cross were not "born again" how did John the Baptist have the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb? Also, why did Jesus tell Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again" (John 3:7) prior to the cross. Moreover, if people weren't born again prior to Acts why did Jesus also tell Nicodemus, "8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)? If you were correct and people weren't born again till after the cross, shouldn't Jesus have said "so is every one that will be born of the Spirit", but rather he put in the present tense and said, "so is every one that is born of the Spirit"? All of this proves that even Old Testament saints were born again.

I'm not opposed to God acting because of His foreknowledge.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Another point...

Why did Jesus Speak in parables if they the non elect couldn't hear spiritual truth?

And then those who would follow Him and could discern truth, asked Him to explain....

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Jesus was clear that A) God Hid his truths from some and B)Had to reveal His truths to others (in other words He had to show it to them and that C) No man knows the Father unless the Son reveals Him to the person.

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Matthew 11:25-27)

Also when Peter made a confession of faith, what did Jesus tell him? "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee (in other words a preacher or Peter did not reveal this to Peter), but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17).

As far as the disciples not immediately learning everything Jesus taught, nobody is contending God teaches you to learn all his truth at once. Scripture is clear we start of as babies and grow in knowledge, what the two sides disagree with is one believes they cause their own birth into being a baby and grow on their own, while the other side maintains it takes a Father and His Spirit to begot the birth by His action and will and it is God alone that "giveth the increase" in believers causing them to grow as man waters.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I'm not opposed to God acting because of His foreknowledge.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

John the Baptist Had the Holy Spirit from his womb, this is a fact in time, precross, not the foreknowledge and purpose of God for the future. I could give you examples of Old Testament saints who had the Holy Ghost as well, "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21) and ".And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" ( 1 Corinthians 10:4)

 

[JonShaff]

John the Baptist Had the Holy Spirit from his womb, this is a fact in time, precross, not the foreknowledge and purpose of God for the future. I could give you examples of Old Testament saints who had the Holy Ghost as well, "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21) and ".And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" ( 1 Corinthians 10:4)

I don't believe you helped your cause quoting Ezekiel as he describes a future event.

Do you agree it was a future event?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[JonShaff]

Nobody answered the two questions previously posited.

Why did Jesus marvel at their unbelief if He caused their unbelief.

Why did Jesus marvel at their faith if He caused their faith?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I don't believe you helped your cause quoting Ezekiel as he describes a future event.

Do you agree it was a future event?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Do you believe Old Testament saints died with their stony hearts? Do you believe Old Testament saints did not have God's Spirit in them? Do you believe Old Testament saints did not walk in God's statutes? These are all three things described in that passage.

 

[JonShaff]

Do you believe Old Testament saints died with their stony hearts? Do you believe Old Testament saints did not have God's Spirit in them? Do you believe Old Testament saints did not walk in God's statutes? These are all three things described in that passage.

arguing a negative is a illogical. I know they died In *faith* because that is what Hebrews 11 says. Eph. 2 says we are saved by grace through faith. Therefore we can determine God saved them from the penalty of their sin.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[BrotherJoseph]

arguing a negative is a illogical. I know they died In *faith* because that is what Hebrews 11 says. Eph. 2 says we are saved by grace through faith. Therefore we can determine God saved them from the penalty of their sin.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

My response made perfect sense because your conclusions that Eze 36 did not occur until after the cross, would force you to conclude that saints died with stony hearts, without the Spirit in them, and either didn't obey God's statutes or did so without God causing them. If it is the latter, what was the need of even having to be regenerated if one could obey God's statutes already with a stony heart, then why would have need to be caused to do so? At any rate, these three things are all described in Eze 36.

 

[JonShaff]

My response made perfect sense because your conclusions that Eze 36 did not occur until after the cross, would force you to conclude that saints died with stony hearts, without the Spirit in them, and either didn't obey God's statutes or did so without God causing them. If it is the latter, what was the need of even having to be regenerated if one could obey God's statutes already with a stony heart, then why would have need to be caused to do so? At any rate, these three things are all described in Eze 36.

False premise....like I said earlier...TD isn't scriptural IMHO.

New covenant, new dealings bro. Pentecost proved it to be so

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[JonShaff]

Also, maybe this thought is for another thread, but I believe when it said John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit," i believe that it is simple term for "Empowered By" the Holy Spirit. Because if he was regenerated Prior to birth, Then he was born perfect and was always perfect and without sin nature. I only know ONE who was born without Sin Nature, Jesus Christ. And to say otherwise is bordering on blasphemy.

 

[steaver]

You are an Arminian in denial. If one doesn't believe in unconditional election then they agree with the Arminian position on election. If one doesn't believe in original sin and total inability then they agree with the Arminian position on man's fallen condition. If one doesn't believe in particular redemption than they agree with the Arminian position on unlimited atonement. It's kind of like what Rippon said, it's either one or the other.

BB is the only place where Arminians deny being Arminians and dispensationalists deny being dispensationalist. It's easy to have debate on substance when everyone is at least knowledgeable of and honest with their position. I appreciate those Arminians who at least stand on their position more than those who play theological gymnastics.

Lol. How many Calvinist on here deny they are Calvinist? I for one am not an arminian. I hold to the biblical doctrines of grace.

 

[steaver]

You are an Arminian in denial. If one doesn't believe in unconditional election then they agree with the Arminian position on election. If one doesn't believe in original sin and total inability then they agree with the Arminian position on man's fallen condition. If one doesn't believe in particular redemption than they agree with the Arminian position on unlimited atonement. It's kind of like what Rippon said, it's either one or the other.

BB is the only place where Arminians deny being Arminians and dispensationalists deny being dispensationalist. It's easy to have debate on substance when everyone is at least knowledgeable of and honest with their position. I appreciate those Arminians who at least stand on their position more than those who play theological gymnastics.

Funny thing is, Arminians call me a Calvinist and Calvinist call me an arminian. Proves I am not the one stuck on man made theologies.

 

[tyndale1946]

John the Baptist Had the Holy Spirit from his womb, this is a fact in time, precross, not the foreknowledge and purpose of God for the future. I could give you examples of Old Testament saints who had the Holy Ghost as well, "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21) and ".And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" ( 1 Corinthians 10:4)

I seem to have forgotten these and thanks for bring them up Brother Joe... To say that the OT saints were not born again as these verses of scripture state they were, but there are some on here who are going to argue with Peter and Paul?... Not me!... Brethren you can argue all you want but the truth is according to scripture stated in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Peter, and Corinthians the OT saints were born again... They couldn't follow Christ if they weren't, and it further states that Christ followed them according to Paul... Brother Glen

 

[robustheologian]

Lol. How many Calvinist on here deny they are Calvinist?

That's just the point, no one denies being a Calvinist here.

Funny thing is, Arminians call me a Calvinist...

Any Arminian calling you a Calvinist is as confused as you are.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Also, maybe this thought is for another thread, but I believe when it said John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit," i believe that it is simple term for "Empowered By" the Holy Spirit. Because if he was regenerated Prior to birth, Then he was born perfect and was always perfect and without sin nature. I only know ONE who was born without Sin Nature, Jesus Christ. And to say otherwise is bordering on blasphemy.

Hi again brother Jon,


John the Baptist had an earthly father unlike Jesus, therefore he would have seminally inherited a depraved flesh just like you and I. After one is born again by the Holy Spirit, scripture teaches their flesh does not improve, but remains totally depraved. The difference of course is the person now also has the Holy Spirit in Him, thus he now has two natures. This would be how John was born. The fact that the flesh remains totally depraved after regeneration is proven by Paul saying after he was saved, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." (Romans 7:18). The verse is written in the present tense after Paul has been born again. Paul said in the same chapter he was carnal (present tense), "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Romans 7:14). Jesus taught the flesh profits nothing after regeneration, in other words it doesn't improve, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63) If the flesh improved after regeneration it would profit a great deal. This is why we await our the transformation of our new bodies to redeem us from the vile ones we currently have,. "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Philippians 3:21). Jonn the Baptist isn't the only pre-cross example that one can point to of one having the Spirit while yet a baby infant, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." This is further proof proving the doctrine of gospel regeneration is false, it is also the only doctrine that gives hope to infants dying in infancy from abortion. If gospel regeneration is true, to be consistent one must then conclude all such infants go to Hell or devise a different means of salvation for them, but scripture knows only of one.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[JonShaff]

Hi again brother Jon,


John the Baptist had an earthly father unlike Jesus, therefore he would have seminally inherited a depraved flesh just like you and I. After one is born again by the Holy Spirit, scripture teaches their flesh does not improve, but remains totally depraved. The difference of course is the person now also has the Holy Spirit in Him, thus he now has two natures. This would be how John was born. The fact that the flesh remains totally depraved after regeneration is proven by Paul saying after he was saved, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." (Romans 7:18). The verse is written in the present tense after Paul has been born again. Paul said in the same chapter he was carnal (present tense), "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Romans 7:14). Jesus taught the flesh profits nothing after regeneration, in other words it doesn't improve, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63) If the flesh improved after regeneration it would profit a great deal. This is why we await our the transformation of our new bodies to redeem us from the vile ones we currently have,. "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Philippians 3:21). Jonn the Baptist isn't the only pre-cross example that one can point to of one having the Spirit while yet a baby infant, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." This is further proof proving the doctrine of gospel regeneration is false, it is also the only doctrine that gives hope to infants dying in infancy from abortion. If gospel regeneration is true, to be consistent one must then conclude all such infants go to Hell or devise a different means of salvation for them, but scripture knows only of one.

God bless,

Brother Joe

Jesus had the same flesh as John...???

Are all believers Regenerate in the womb?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Jesus had the same flesh as John...???

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Jesus was born of a virgin so He wouldn't inherit the sin nature that is handed down by our earthly fathers because all men were literally in Adam when he fell. This is why speaking of Adam and his transgression, Paul declared" by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12) and " 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" (Romans 5:18). John the Baptist is a descendant of Adam and had an earthly father and therefore inherited a depraved flesh from his father, Jesus Christ's Father was God, therefore he did not inherit a depraved flesh. This is the whole reason Jesus had to be born of a virgin so he could be a sinless sacrifice, a pure lamb offered up.

 

[JonShaff]

Brother Joseph, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. These Things will all be revealed at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

 

[JonShaff]

Jesus was born of a virgin so He wouldn't inherit the sin nature that is handed down by our earthly fathers because all men were literally in Adam when he fell. This is why speaking of Adam and his transgression, Paul declared" by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12) and " 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" (Romans 5:18). John the Baptist is a descendant of Adam and had an earthly father and therefore inherited a depraved flesh from his father, Jesus Christ's Father was God, therefore he did not inherit a depraved flesh. This is the whole reason Jesus had to be born of a virgin so he could be a sinless sacrifice, a pure lamb offered up.

This may sound Good, but the Bible says the Life is in the Blood. Your flesh speculations are totally misguided brother.

Christ's blood was pure, The Blood was poured out on the Mercy seat. TD is a man made doctrine. Not Biblical Brother. Romans 8:3

 

[Internet Theologian]

This may sound Good, but the Bible says the Life is in the Blood. Your flesh speculations are totally misguided brother.

Christ's blood was pure, The Blood was poured out on the Mercy seat. TD is a man made doctrine. Not Biblical Brother. Romans 8:3

Have you read elaboration on total depravity, and what it truly entails? The phrase tends to be misleading.