Christ was Arminian?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Pastor Larry,

Who was first to inform you that what you believe falls well within the framework of Calvinism?

I have no idea.

You may have forgotten from seminary days that you cannot push a parable to the extreme. I think Jesus was giving a hypothetical illustration that He desires that even the one lost sheep would be saved. The ninety-and nine were already in the fold. This obviously is not a real situation otherwise universalism would be correct; and neither of us believe this non-sense.

I have not forgotten that and I have not pushed it anywhere. My point is that this parable shows your statement to be incorrect. The salvation of even one sinner is a cause of "great shouting," contrary to your claim that the salvation of only a few is not a reason for great shouting. I don't think this being a real situation would lead to universalism. The 99 were those who thought they were righteous. Check out Bock's commentary on Luke (BECNT). It is the best available on Luke at the present. See also HEndrickson.

The point of the parable is the contrast between the Pharisees and the sinners that Jesus was reaching out to. Surely you do not believe the Pharisees were truly saved do you? I can't imagine that position being viable. They were self-righteous. They did not consider themselves in need of repentance. That is exactly the situation that Christ speaks of in v. 7.

The point of the parable is the value of a lost soul that the callous unsaved Pharisees did not share. Jesus is communicating the heart of the gospel--go to the world and bring them in. The Pharisees were too self-righteous; they did not need repentance -- in their minds only. But again, the particular details of exegesis we can differ on. My point is still the same: Where you believe that the salvation of a minority is not a cause for great joy, Scripture says that it is.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Sorry Scott, I don't believe in playing cards

How about dancing - that's another one...

As far as 'converting' that will not happen because I am confident in the truth of the Doctrines of Grace as I believe them. But I can see the advantage in knowing the real position of the Arminian.

I have no doubt that neither of us will convert, but at least it'll help us understand the other side.

What do you call the other position that is represented on here? Is this strictly 'Free-will' theology?

I'm not sure. At least Calvinism and Arminianism are both generally consistent. Maybe we can call it "free-willism," but that is a name that some Calvinists are apt to call Arminians. Who knows?

 

[Frogman]

The New Century Version says, 'But the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to true life. Only a few people find that road.' How can this mean that the majority will enter Heaven?

It is significant, at least to me that the NCV leaves out the reference to the other way being broad...in view of your quote at least. If I am wrong I stand to be corrected. If not, then why speak from such works that will not even consider all the referenced scripture?

As far as few entering into heaven consider the millions aborted even in China.

And you said billions in China do not know God through Christ, now are you made a judge of another man's heart?

Here are the Words of the Holy Bible in plain English used as an instrument of faith for centuries by the Holy Spirit, but not adequate enough for modern man....

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who maketh intercession for us.

Here scripture plainly teaches against the heresy that man can be ultimately lost once he ever is saved, and here scripture teaches against the heresy that God is limited to the use of human instrumentality in calling his elect.

Hear the words:

• Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?
  
  Here we are made to know of a certainty that known to God are those elect, how can the Bible speak of them so if they are not eternally known of God. Do we think then he is scrambling to beat an appointment with death that all of His elect will hear and maybe believe what they hear? Then we are employing human abilities and reasoning to define an all-powerful God. He is not a household god of the pagan nations who is unable to move himself about, nor unable to speak to his people wherever they are to be found.
  
• It is God that justifieth.
  
  Hear is the Greek:δικαιόω
  dikaioō
  dik-ah-yo'-o
  From G1342; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent: - free, justify (-ier), be righteous.
  
  As is given by Strong this is derived from:
  
  G1342
  δίκαιος
  dikaios
  dik'-ah-yos
  From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).
  
  Again taken from:
  G1349
  δίκη
  dikē
  dee'-kay
  Probably from G1166; right (as self evident), that is, justice (the principle, a decision, or its execution): - judgment, punish, vengeance.
  
  And this from:
  δεικνύω
  deiknuō
  dike-noo'-o
  A prolonged form of an obsolete primary of the same meaning; to show (literally or figuratively): - shew.
  
  So the sense I have given to the passage provided bears out and is shown to be weighed in the balance of the Word of God.
  
• Who is he that condemneth?
  
  What is meant here?
  
  G2632
  κατακρίνω
  katakrinō
  kat-ak-ree'-no
  From G2596 and G2919; to judge against, that is, sentence: - condemn, damn.
  
  As Strong says this is taken from the combination of two Greek words:
  
  G2596
  κατά
  kata
  kat-ah'
  A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.
  and from:
  
  G2919
  κρίνω
  krinō
  kree'-no
  Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish: - avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.
  
  From this then we learn who is he that condemneth? It is not you nor I, nor is it the result of our failure to 'preach' to those who shall believe, whether they be in Bhutan, China, or Glasgow, KY. {a short study would be the witness on brethren from INDIA who in obedience to the calling they possess are illegally and daily traversing the border into Bhutan a Bhuddist nation of which the Constitutional Monarchy has outlawed preaching and teaching of the Gospel of Christ since 1960; even then, after the law of man and today in the midst of that law of man...the word of God is not bound. Thus we cannot know the end of men only by the outward show of whether their nation is "christian" or some other 'religion.'
  
• It is Christ that died,
  
  Here we have as signified in the word "died."
  
  G599
  ἀποθνήσκω
  apothnēskō
  ap-oth-nace'-ko
  From G575 and G2348; to die off (literally or figuratively): - be dead, death, die, lie a-dying, be slain (X with).
  
  taken from:
  
  G575
  ἀπό
  apo
  apo'
  A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.
  
  and:
  
  G2348
  θνήσκω
  thnēskō
  thnay'-sko
  A strengthened form of a simpler primary word θάνω thanō (which is used for it only in certain tenses); to die (literally or figuratively): - be dead, die.
  
  Here we see the beginning of our understanding; for he has tasted death for all that is answered at I Cor. 15.22-23
  
• ...,yea rather, that is risen again,...
  
  But scripture does not satisfy itself with the death of the Lamb of God, instead Paul continues on here to present yet again that which ought always be the topic of any and all who would pursue to 'preach' this topic is the Gospel of God as Paul declares in the opening Chapter of this epistle...(Rom 1.1-5).
  
  here we have the terms '...is risen again...'
  
  it is: G1453
  ἐγείρω
  egeirō
  eg-i'-ro
  Probably akin to the base of G58 (through the idea of collecting one’s faculties); to waken (transitively or intransitively), that is, rouse (literally from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence): - awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-) rise (again, up), stand, take up.
  
  From: G58
  ἀγορά
  agora
  ag-or-ah'
  From ἀγείρω “ageiro” (to gather; probably akin to G1453); properly the town square (as a place of public resort); by implication a market or thoroughfare: - market (-place), street
  
  Note the place to whence he is said to gather they are public places...ie--the town square; a market place--humm...the redemption of those in the market...no Biblical foundation but the raging of a Calvinistic maniac...the study of the Scripture certainly tells another tale, doesn't it.
  
  This word is akin to: G1453
  ἐγείρω
  egeirō
  eg-i'-ro
  Probably akin to the base of G58 (through the idea of collecting one’s faculties); to waken (transitively or intransitively), that is, rouse (literally from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence): - awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-) rise (again, up), stand, take up.
  
  Essentially we have here a strengthening of the word, it is doubly founded upon the meaning in the Greek, notice the connotation of rousing from obscurity, from inactivity. Imagine that, billions are dying without their Saviour, why??? Because of inactivity?? Because of obscurity of His Gospel message?? Because of ruins of HIS Bride the church?? Because of the nonexistence of HIS presence?? In this note Rom 8.32; is this not a promise recorded in Holy Scripture? For what purpose? That the fear of falling away ultimately of the believer can be entertained? That it can be entertained that any for whom He died will not be saved? I submit to you from this Scriptural foundation that He did not die, nor is He risen again that even one of HIS sheep could possibly face condemnation.
  
  But still we are not yet finished with this Scripture, we find:
  
• who is even at the right hand of God,
  
  I am almost fearful to enter into a discussion of this particular verse for the depth that it shall surely plunge us into:
  
  Note: God---Taking the time to do a word study here we find: H193
  אוּל
  'ûl
  ool
  From an unused root meaning to twist, that is, (by implication) be strong; the body (as being rolled together) also powerful: - mighty, strength.
  
  The Greek: G2316
  θεός
  theos
  theh'-os
  Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
  
  and used with: G3588
  ὁ, ἡ, τό
  ho hē to
  ho, hay, to
  The masculine, feminine (second) and neuter (third) forms, in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.
  
  Here is the " I AM THAT I AM " and Christ, who is he that condemneth, that died, that is risen again, who is at HIS right hand...and what is he doing?
  
• who also maketh intercession for us
  
  G1793
  ἐντυγχάνω
  entugchanō
  en-toong-khan'-o
  From G1722 and G5177; to chance upon, that is, (by implication) confer with; by extension to entreat (in favor or against): - deal with, make intercession.
  
  This is taken from two other words they are, respectively:
  
  G1722
  ἐν
  en
  en
  A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.
  
  and:
  
  G5177
  τυγχάνω
  tugchanō
  toong-khan'-o
  Probably for an obsolete τύχω tuchō (for which the middle voice of another alternate τεύχω teuchō [to make ready or bring to pass] is used in certain tenses; akin to the base of G5088 through the idea of effecting; properly to affect; or (specifically) to hit or light upon (as a mark to be reached), that is, (transitively) to attain or secure an object or end, or (intransitively) to happen (as if meeting with); but in the latter application only impersonally (with G1487), that is, perchance; or (present participle) as adjective usual (as if commonly met with, with G3756, extraordinary), neuter (as adverb) perhaps; or (with another verb) as adverb by accident (as it were): - be, chance, enjoy, little, obtain, X refresh . . . self, + special. Compare G5180.
  
  Here we are encouraged to compare Strong's #5180, let's see:G5180
  τύπτω
  tuptō
  toop'-to
  A primary verb (in a strengthened form); to “thump”, that is, cudgel or pummel (properly with a stick or bastinado), but in any case by repeated blows; thus differing from G3817 and G3960, which denote a [usually single] blow with the hand or any instrument, or G4141 with the fist [or a hammer], or G4474 with the palm; as well as from G5177, an accidental collision); by implication to punish; figuratively to offend (the conscience): - beat, smite, strike, wound.
  
  Can we imagine this is to be true of the one who shall in the future deliver the Kingdom up to the Father and God shall be all in all? No, you ask then why present it? I will show you.
  
  First we know that when the age is consummated that Christ will submit all to God and all things at this time will have been put under his {Christ's} authority but we know HE is excepted who has put all things under Him, HE is God (I Cor. 15.27-28). So what is the significance of the note of "tupto" it shows further the activity of Christ; In his intercession He not only is our advocate before God, He is actively pointing to the Covenant made and the fulfillment delivered, and further He is operating from His seat at the right hand of God even as He did so among the prophets (I Pet. 1.11); the Samarian Woman (John 4) and Paul (Acts 9) and Abraham (Gal. 3.8).
  
  Being at the right hand will be easily understood by any but if desired can be dealt with in another post. Let us look at "us" and then we will close the post:
  
  G2257
  ἡμῶν
  hēmōn
  hay-mone'
  Genitive plural of G1473; of (or from) us: - our (company), us, we.
  
  This being given as the genitive plural of Strong's #1473: G1473
  ἐγώ
  egō
  eg-o'
  A primary pronoun of the first person, “I” (only expressed when emphatic): - I, me. For the other cases and the plural see G1691, G1698, G1700, G2248, G2249, G2254, G2257, etc.
  
  You guys can do the study of the various cases of the word.
  
  What I want to note here is the word "company." Particularly being 'of' or 'from' 'our' company. It is this company that all believers make up; It is this company for which Christ has died; It is this company that not one member shall be left outside of this is a confidence I have not because Calvin believed it, but because the Lamb of God is even now at HIS right hand making intercession for us; this has in view those who are experientally a part of this company, and further those who are yet to be born into that company.
  
  With that I end this post. And I didn't even present Rom 8.29, 30, & 35-39. How much farther we could go!!!
  
  And you guys thought Sovereign Grace Baptists couldn't present Scripture foundation for their beliefs.
  
  
  
  God Bless.
  Bro. Dallas
  

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Dallas,

The New Century Version does speak of the wide gate; I just lifted out the part about the narrow way.

'Enter through the narrow gate. The gate is wide and the road is wide that leads to Hell, and many people enter through that gate. But the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to true life. Only a few people find that road.' (end quote)

I do not judge individual hearts. I'm too old now to question the three or four billion souls that are in China. But, other reliable people have broken down the various world religions that represent all of the people in China. I trust their evaluation. You don't believe that people who believe in Islam, Buddhism or Shintoism make it to Heaven do you?

 

[Frogman]

You don't believe that people who believe in Islam, Buddhism or Shintoism make it to Heaven do you?

I stand corrected concerning the NCV; but still would advise against the use of any but the KJV.

To answer your question...No, providing they die in this falsehood. This could warrant further discussion however.

Bro. Dallas

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
How can this mean that the majority will enter Heaven?

Hey, Ray, unless you think that all those that die in the womb or as young children end up in hell, you have probably either at least half of all people ever conceived or a quite large plurality going to heaven in this circumstance. Then for me, as a postmillennialist, I believe there will be several hundred years when most people are indeed Christians(don't even dispensationalists believe that in their literal, physical millenial rule by Christ that most people are Christians during that time?).

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
My understanding is that you have skirted the idea that only the 'few' will find eternal life with Jesus Christ. [Matt. 7:14]

I have skirted nothing, Ray. Was Jesus talking in this verse about only those who can exhibit repentance and faith or was He talking about every person who is ever conceived, including the billions who have and will yet die in the womb or in their first few short years of life?

I believe He was talking about the former and not the latter.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Did Christ believe in free-will? James Arminius believed that God gave every person a free will.ere is what Arminius said. In "Arminius' Works" 'The Free-will of Man' the Third Allegation:

'Since He endowed man with free-will, that He might test his freedom and voluntary obedience. He could not have done this, if He had imposed an inseparable hindrance upon man.'

 

[KenH]

Hey, Ray, Adam had free will. Adam sinned, and then had a sin nature which is passed on to his posterity ever since.

You, Ray, are not in Adam's position. I would be surprised if Arminius did not understand that as well - that he was not in Adam's position.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken the Spurgeonite,

'You, Ray, are not in Adam's position. I would be surprised if Arminius did not understand that as well - that he was not in Adam's position.'

Clever! Does your cut-off end with Adam or Adam and Eve? You are inferring that since Adam we are not responsible for our sins or especially our personal salvation. Sinners should just wait and see if they get tapped on the shoulder or the nod as to their being selected. If any sinner does not yield their will to Jesus they are not at this point saved. The breaking of the will is part of repentance toward Almighty God. If the rebellious will is not given up to Christ salvation will not take place in the heart and life of the sinner.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Does your cut-off end with Adam or Adam and Eve? You are inferring that since Adam we are not responsible for our sins or especially our personal salvation.

Now, Ray, I do hope you understand that Adam was not created with a sin nature but you and I were born with a sin nature. Therefore, we start off behind the eight ball, so to speak, while Adam had an advantage that we do not enjoy as he was not created with a sin nature.

I infer no such thing that we are not responsible for our sins. The only way a person ends up in hell is because he is responsible for his sins.

I don't infer but outright state that I am not responsible for my salvation. I am saved by God's grace and God's grace alone. Every person who is saved is saved by God's grace and God's grace alone, or else he will not be saved. Period.

 

[BobRyan]

Larry
Now you are changing the subject Ray. You cannot do that in midstream. You said How can Calvinists speak of Docrtines of Grace when behind the title--God selects the majority for Hell and only saves the relative few? Is this something to shout about?. The biblical response is "Yes, this is something to shout about since the angels in heaven shout over even one." The "relative few" (in your words) are certainly more than one and bring great joy, and great shouting in heaven. Once again, Scripture has shown your doctrine to be incorrect.

Obviously Larry fully endorses the Calvinist quagmire below - he specifically selects the Calvinist "answer" --

Originally posted by Yelsew: posted April 12, 2003 05:04 PM
Posted on the thread “Freed from the Arminian Camp” Page 5.
Consider what your position says of God.

Consider the recently deposed regime of Iraq. Saddam was God, and there were three catagories of people the Sunies, the Sheites and the Kurds. The Sunies received Saddam's favor, the Sheites received Saddam's disfavor, and the Kurds were those Saddam hated. In the arena of Election the Sunies were the elect, the Sheites and Kurds all others.

The doctrine of Election equates to Saddam, and I add all other dictators.

God does not have a democracy, but he also does not have a dictatorship. God accepts into his favor all who believe in Him and those who believe in his Only begotten Son, Jesus.

I absolutely agree. The monster Saddam is made a wonderful "poster boy" for the doctrine of election as interpreted by Calvinism, just as you say Yelsew!

Yelsew's excellent point about the monster known as Saddam - deserves a follow up illustration.

When the 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of eternal roasting in hell - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry "Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Couldn't you have done Something for my precious child??"

And of course the answer will come back that Calvinism so loves to hear - "Why of course I COULD - IF I had Cared to"!

"Hallelujah!" cries out the Calvinist - that IS the Gospel I was proclaiming!! Ahh that blissful eternity with calvinism's God that unfairly saved you but not your precious daughter - and you will be praising through all eternity that YOU were spared though she was not. (For it IS all about You in the end) Blessing the fact that He chose You - that it was "unfair" as you say - but it was graciously unfair IN YOUR favor - just not your precious daughter's. So just enjoy! Enjoy! Unjust Mercy - oh the Calvinist bliss.

You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not allowed the "luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?

God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the calvinist mind.

All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

And for us Arminians - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really DOES "So Love the World" not merely the "Few " of Matt 7 - and He is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only - but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2::2.

We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that DOES Love ALL and died for ALL and "IS not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to Repentance".

Somehow that will have to help us enjoy eternity too. I wonder how we will fair by comparison.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken the Spurgeonite,

'I infer no such thing that we are not responsible for our sins. The only way a person ends up in hell is because he is responsible for his sins.'

Oh, I thought the Calvinist position was that you had to wait and see if the Lord tapped you on the shoulder, regenerated you and counted you among the elect. Don't get me wrong I agree that your above statement is right. Be responsible; accept Christ; and find salvation by your faith/trust in Him.

'I don't infer but outright state that I am not responsible for my salvation. I am saved by God's grace and God's grace alone.'

I agree that we as sinners are saved by the grace of God alone. Notice your first sentence of the above paragraph that starts, 'I agree that . . . is in conflict with your first paragraph. You are not allowed to say you are responsible for your own sins and responsible for keeping out of Hell, and then turn around an say that 'I outright state that I am not responsible for my salvation.' Either you have a part in keeping out of Hell, or God damns sinners at will and no one has any say in the matter. The first phrase of this past sentence is Biblically correct and the latter half is bogus and the quasi-theology of Augustine

Sinners choose. [Deuteronomy 30:19]

[ April 17, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Either you have a part in keeping out of Hell, or God damns sinners at will and no one has any say in the matter.

First off, I request as a brother in Christ that you stop the personal attacks on John Calvin in calling him a "persecutor", etc. That adds nothing to this forum's discussions which are supposed to be about doctrine, not people.

Second, I reject your assertion that there is a symmetry in salvation and damnation. Salvation is all of grace, while damnation is all of sin. The former God is totally responsible for, the latter man is totally responsible for.

Besides if man is responsible for any part of his salvation then, by definition, you have added man's effort into the salvation issue. And I thought that was something you Arminians argued against. But, as usual, Arminianism poses quite the theological quandary for its adherents as they just can't seem to get out of their own way.

 

[russell55]

When the 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of eternal roasting in hell - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry "Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Couldn't you have done Something for my precious child??"

Oh, puhlease! Not again!

Bob, when you peak over the ramparts of heaven (whatever it is those are) and see your own precious daughter there, what will you think?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
When the 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter

No, NO, NO!! NOT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

I can't handle this anymore! It's driving me bonkers!! CAN'T SOMEONE MAKE HIM STOP THIS INSANE, UNTRUE, SLANDEROUS ILLUSTRATION!!!!!!!!


There, I feel better now.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
who passed the age of accountability

There is no such thing taught in the Bible as an "age of accountability". The idea is a false Arminian construction.

But if one must use a reference point for responsibility it is at conception. David stated in the Psalms that he was conceived in sin.

 

[Yelsew]

Age of Accountability?
Perhaps it is not stated specifically in scripture, but every civilization on this earth practices it! And has since Noah landed on Ararat!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Age of Accountability?
Perhaps it is not stated specifically in scripture, but every civilization on this earth practices it! And has since Noah landed on Ararat!

We are not talking about this subject in a cultural sense in which I agree with you. We are talking about it in regards to the idea that until some supposed "age of accountability" a person can sin and not be accountable for sinning. If there is such an "age of accountability" then -

1)What about those who are mentally retarded? Do they ever reach such an age?

2)Are children better off dying before rather than living to such an age? As some in this forum like to point out, they believe that the majority of those who become accountable ultimately end up in hell. Therefore, in their scheme, the odds are greatly against those who become accountable.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken the Spurgeonite,

You said, 'The former God is totally responsible for, the latter man is totally responsible for.'

So you are Calvinistic on the first phrase, 'The former God is totally responsible for . . . ' {as to electing new saints} And you are Arminian and Free Will on the second action of God, which you indicate determines the lost fate of all the remaining sinners, where you said, ' . . . the latter man is totally responsible for.'

The Cross provided His perfect plan for all sinners. Human beings, with the aid of the Spirit, determine the destiny of either Heaven or Hell. [John 3:16-18]