Christ was Arminian?

Pastor Larry suggested that we might believe that 'Man refuses to respond and God condemns him because of his own willing choice to sin.'

This concept is flawed for several reasons. First, if God sovereignly elected the saved, then the rest of whom we are speaking about above, have no choice to be saved; their fate is eternally sealed by God, because of His already having chosen His favored elect ones.

Secondly, brother Larry suggests that 'God condemns the sinner because of his own willing choice to sin.' The Bible tells us that the predominant reason why God damns souls is because the lost have not received the Son and He then, has no choice but to condemn the Christ rejecters. [John 3:18 b & c]

Larry further suggests that the remaining sinners remain in unbelief because of their 'willing choice to sin.' This is also out of harmony with the Calvinistic view of the Bondage of the Will. If the will is bound as to the non-elect there can be no 'choice' or option to regain Divine holiness and Heaven. Remember, their wills are Divinely bound to not receive Christ, according to Calvinistic teaching. There can be no 'choice to sin', unless there is the option to not sin. Herein is the defective thinking. This notion and hypothetical option was eradicated because of His selection to save only His elect. And according to some Calvinists' assumption, the non-elect only desire to sin. This cannot be documented in Scripture; but His own words say, 'And when He is come, He will reprove {not some of the world} the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of {coming} judgment.' [John 16:8] The lost are all convicted of their sin when they hear the Gospel through a witness or preaching; thus the general call to salvation rather than the alleged clandestine call to the chosen ones.

 

Scott, As I have said, what someone states or believes is not the issue. The issue is, What does Scripture teache. In that regard, Scripture does not teach what he claims it does. My belief and your belief is irrelevant. The revelation of God is the only relevant issue.

No one has used Scripture to do that. I place no authority in the opinions of "wise theologians." I study them and use Scripture as teh judge, the measuring stick. I do fail to accept "wise theologians" when they contradict Scripture.

I did not defend my use of emotional langauge because I did not use emotional language. Scott, my language is mine; I get to say what it means and what it doesn't. You are the one who misunderstood. Do not blame that on me.

No, I am not that postmodern. But the truth is the truth. When someone states it, they are right. When someone fails to conform to it, they are wrong. It is that simple.

 

Did you just get here? We have shown ad nauseum the verses and proof of effectual calling.

Where was this verse? YOu have not shown even one verse that teaches man can respond of his own volitional choice. That choice will always be exercised against God as Scripture teaches in numerous places.

Yes they are ... because of their nature. It is exactly the analogy Christ used in JOhn 8 when he told the Pharisees that they couldn't (word of ability ... look it up and see for yourself) hear him because they were of their father the devil. Christ used the parent analogy and he said when you have the wrong parent, you can't hear.

It hasn't so far ...

The majority of church history has sided with me on this one. I cannot imagine how you can presume to speak for most other Christians. It is not about perspective, and hopefully one day that will begin to sink in. It is about revelation. What has God said? That is the only thing I care about. THe philosophical constructs that you and Bob and Bill have put forth are of little interest to me and they should be of little interest to you.

But again, this will get us nowhere because we do not agree on Scripture. So I will respectfully bow out here ...

 

Your understanding of Scripture is what is flawed.

No, their fate is sealed because of their own rejection.

Hello Ray ... ever read Revelation?? 20:11-15 and 21:8 both refute you. Conform your theology to Scripture.

You are so amazing Ray. No matter how long you have been here, you are not listening. Man sins willfully. NO one forces him to. That is the teaching of Scripture. YOu need to conform your belief to it.

But this will too fall on deaf ears as it has so many times before ... sadly ...

 

With all due respect to a pastor, you have not responded to the intent of my explanation of Biblical facts. You have not defended against my concepts. I see you reciting your dogma and trying to plug up the holes in your errant theology. I wish this were different.

I agree that a sinners sins place that person in Hell as in Revelation 20, but the predominant reason for a person being in Hell is because they did not believe in the Son. [John 3:16; I John 5:10 & 12] I am sure you all agree with this paragraph.

 

I don't say much (I generally just read). Good posts Ray.

I get the idea these Calvinists want to have their cake and eat it too, when it comes to Freedom of the will.

Jacob.

 

It is different than what you have written here. I have spent so much time showing from Scripture how you are wrong. You have simply refused to listen to the Word of God. Your concepts have been shown faulty by many of us, and we have done so repeatedly. I am not sure what else you want. The word is clear. Why not accept it?

The predominant reason is their sin, unbelief included. The problem for you is that you think all sin was atoned for at the cross. You still have not explained a sufficient way to get aroudn the problem of your own making.

In the end, this discussion will be solved only by a rigid allegiance to the revelatio of God in Scripture, not by relying on man's mind. There must come a time when you reject the ideas of human thinking and accept God for what he says.

 

'There must come a time when you reject the ideas of human thinking and accept God for what he says.'

Larry, I'll be attentive to the conviction of the Holy Spirit; I do know when He desires to correct my ways. Maybe one of your Calvinist apologists can give a phrase by phrase explanation of where I need to be corrected.

 

1: the "sin" David was conceived in was not the sexual union. This is making the same mistake as the dualistic medieval Catholic church. The sin nature passed down through the union, but not by it.

2: The purity in question was spiritual, not physical, and the purity or impurity of the physical union is determined by whether it is within God's boundaries.

3: Not "churchless", but rather false church-less. The false churches (such as ch.17)would be the "defiling women".

 

I got tired of the phrase by phrase correction and explanation a long time ago. The HOly Spirit corrects us through his word. That is why we have it. We must learn to listen to it and quit looking for "better" explanations. What God said is sufficient for us.

 

I followed your point quite well. You did not even respond to mine. The drawing enables the action for sure. IT also ensures it, as the Bible teaches, though you do not. The drawing power of God results in belief according to Christ himself in John 6. (Don't try John 12 because that verse has been explained many times in the context).

How does a parent enable a child to drink?????????? By bringing him into life. And when that child is alive, drinking makes perfect sense ... which is exactly what us calvinists would say. People who are alive see the perfect sense of "Drinking from the living water." Those who are dead do not.

Did you think you needed to say this twice/?? We saw it the first time.

Not really becuase even in your system, hell is filled with people God could have saved if he had chosen to. But he let them go on their way, never bothering to actually save them.

 

Pastor Larry,

I have at times been corrected by the Word and the Holy Spirit. How about you?

 

Not really becuase even in your system, hell is filled with people God could have saved if he had chosen to. But he let them go on their way, never bothering to actually save them. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Pot, meet the kettle. God could have chosen them in your system, but didn't, knowing where that would lead them.

In the Arminian decision, that choice was not up to God to damn them, the choice was made by the man who did not accept the free gift of salvation.

 

'The drawing enables the action for sure. IT also ensures it, as the Bible teaches,'

The first phrase is theologically correct. The second one is in error. They Holy Spirit cannot ensure and seal the covenant until the sinner yields to Christ. John 5:40; Acts 7:51 and Isaiah 48:8 prove that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. ' . . . ye do always resist the Holy Ghost,' clearly suggests that Resistible Grace is a real, live fact. If you do not call on the Name of the Lord you will not be saved. [Acts 2:21] If a sinner remains in unbelief He is resisting the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

You say that but your dogma doesn't teach this to be the case. Let me show you your contradiction:

Notice the contradiction. You claim that man has the choice to sin but doesn't have the choice to repent of that sin. That's not a choice. If you say to someone, "Choose to continue to live in sin or repent." You have given them two options. If you take away one of those options there is no choice. You have removed an option from the choice, thus there is no choice to make.

You make the simple call of the gospel confused.

 

Yes, I have been. That is how I became a Calvinist.

[/qb]Sigh!!! ... Will you ever listen?? The Holy Spirit is not bound by men. The sinner will yield to Christ when the Holy Spirit effectually calls him, i.e., sets him apart to salvation, as the Bible teaches. No one teaches that the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. You keep making that up. What the Scripture teaches is that the effectual call is just that ... effectual. It accomplishes its purpose of saving. Once again, you err not knowing your opponent or the Scripture.

 

First, my point is that all of Bob's philosophical meanderings has not avoided the problem he created.

Second, there is no "choice" to damn someone. That is the built in consequence of man's sin. God does not choose to damn.

Third, man chooses the consequence of his sin when he freely rejects the free gift of salvation. That is what we have said from day one. The inability is a moral inability. Man does not want to do anything different and somehow, you are not understanding that point. Man is free to do whatever he wants to do.

 

You don't know what I said apparently because you are talking about two different things and you quote me talking about two different things. Man can choose God at anytime he so desires. When he rejects God, it is of his own free will. Get that through your head and quick beating a dead horse. The choice is there. Man will not make it. He will not choose God. He can do so whenever he wants to. That is the bottom line.

This is so basic to biblical soteriology I can't imagine that it still being discussed. YOu guys have no excuse for it either. IT is not like you just got here and have never heard this or seen it defended from the Scripture. YOu simply choose not to accept what Scripture says about this point.

 

Pastor Larry,

Brother Bill clearly pointed out your flawed theological stance.

You say, the non-elect sinners choose only to sin until it leads them to Hell, but you forget that in order to have a choice in taking this path a person must have an option which comes through a free will to continue to sin without a view toward God. Now if you were faithful to your Calvinism you would go with the fact that God sovereignly elects apart from the human free will. And when you go with this view you turn God into a Divine Puppeteer and a God of fatalism, rather than the Christian God.

Pastor, you said that you allow the Spirit and the Word to correct your beliefs and that is how you became a Calvinist. I do not doubt your sincerity, but the Bible tells us as Christians and especially pastors, to ' . . . try the spirits whether they are of God . . . ' [I John 4:1] Although I believe you are taking an extreme Calvinistic view, I do rejoice that you know Him and believe Him to be the Divine Christ.