Christ was Arminian?

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
And you are Arminian and Free Will on the second

How dare you insult me like that!

Actually, I am loosely quoting Charles Haddon Spurgeon on that and that position is thoroughly Calvinistic. You are probably just confusing single-predestination Calvinists(the majority among Calvinists) with double-predestination Calvinists.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you notice how Calvinist hate it when we personalize their doctrine?

The fact is, if Calvinism is true, some people will have close loved ones who die and go to hell as a direct result of God's imputing Adam's sin upon them and then not choosing to save them from that which He bound them over to.

The fact is, "God bound all men over to sin," and it is also a fact that He shows "mercy to them all." Rom. 11:32.

It does not say that he binds all men over to sin so that he may have mercy on some of them and leave the others for wrath. The reason all are bound is so he may have mercy on them ALL.

 

[russell55]

Do you notice how Calvinist hate it when we personalize their doctrine?

I don't hate it because it's personalized. I hate it because it's about the 2050th time Bob has posted the exact same example in the exact same words and just about everytime it's been posted, it's been pointed out to Bob that Calvinists don't think anyone goes to hell because God didn't choose to save them, so the example just doesn't work.

When I am in heaven, if I am forced to look over the ramparts to see my precious daughter writhing in the agony of hell, I will understand exactly the same thing that the noncalvinist understands: THAT SHE IS THERE BECAUSE OF HER SIN!

Whew! Ken's right....shouting works!

 

[russell55]

but every civilization on this earth practices it!

Well...that settles it.....it certainly has to be true then......

 

[Frogman]

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.

I agree with this. Amen!

I believe the error with this is viewing that man is not born sinful and that at the age of accountability he/she then becomes responsible to God for the sin nature which they I hear many 'sovereign Grace' believers appeal to this all the time, and then hear them Amen sound Sovereign Grace Doctrine when it is taught or preached. Somehow, they do not make the connection that a 'mysterious' age of accountability, then we enter into the sinful nature, this is not Biblical, nor is it agreeable; one must be true and the other not, but both cannot be had.

BTW, it is reasonable to say that 'all civilizations' practice something similar to christianity, just as similarities can be seen of the Jewish and druid religions. This is because man was replenished upon the earth by the sons of Noah. But it was the line of Shem that the oracles and prophecies and the worship of the true God was given. The presence of a 'flood' story (though almost always variant from the Bible) is seen in all major civilizations.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />but every civilization on this earth practices it!

Well...that settles it.....it certainly has to be true then......

</font>[/QUOTE]It is true of every civilization on earth!

 

[Frogman]

Do you notice how Calvinist hate it when we personalize their doctrine?

The fact is, if Calvinism is true, some people will have close loved ones who die and go to hell as a direct result of God's imputing Adam's sin upon them and then not choosing to save them from that which He bound them over to.

The fact is, "God bound all men over to sin," and it is also a fact that He shows "mercy to them all." Rom. 11:32.

It does not say that he binds all men over to sin so that he may have mercy on some of them and leave the others for wrath. The reason all are bound is so he may have mercy on them ALL.

The fact that you and every one else ignores in espousing such emotionalism is that there will be no sorrow in heaven, if we are able to look over into the pit, or even into this world and see the suffering of our loved ones, or even anyone, it would certainly create the sorrow you envision, but then God would be made a lier and the Bible untrue. Such it is with all doctrine that pleas to man's emotion.

That is true, it does not make the messenger heartless nor uncaring for his friends and loved ones, nor others they do not even know, but it shows the helplessness of man further and in a depth some are unable to fathom because they are permitting their emotions to blind them to the truth of God's word.

Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
The fact that you and every one else ignores in espousing such emotionalism is that there will be no sorrow in heaven, if we are able to look over into the pit, or even into this world and see the suffering of our loved ones, or even anyone, it would certainly create the sorrow you envision, but then God would be made a lier and the Bible untrue. Such it is with all doctrine that pleas to man's emotion.

That is true, it does not make the messenger heartless nor uncaring for his friends and loved ones, nor others they do not even know, but it shows the helplessness of man further and in a depth some are unable to fathom because they are permitting their emotions to blind them to the truth of God's word.

Bro. Dallas

I agree that emotionalism should not be the foundation for ones faith, however to say that doctrine doesn't plea to man's emotions is absurd. Most of the parables have an emotional plea. Fear, sadness, joy, anticipation, you name it.

The parable of the master and the servant where they servant is forgiven a large debt and fails to forgive someone a small debt so his forgiveness is revolked strikes fear in the heart of those who don't forgive.

The story of the prodigal son raises all kinds of emotions. And consider the story of the man suffering in hell and desiring to warn others and to have just a drop of water on his tongue. If that story doesn't plead with the emotions of a man, I don't know what does.

You can't ignore the fact that God has made us emotional creatures and uses emotion to teach us about himself and to draw us to himself.

 

[BobRyan]

The "Age of accountability" point in the illustration was simply to avoid a few Calvinist "dodges" (and to "setup" the Arminian response for how the Arminian would deal with the SAME problem).

What this does for the Calvinist case is remove the escape of consoling yourself with the thought that no "witnessing" was possible for the child. Try not to get lost on that point.

Russell55
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?

Yes Russell - the Calvinist failed to address the point last time - so it remains the most devastating unnanswered challenge to Calvinism posted on this thread. Finding new ways to "dodge" and "duck" the lack of a response from our Calvinist bretheren - does not "form a kind of proof" in defense of Calvinism.

But since you asked HOW the Arminian would view that SAME situation - you will now get that devastating solution to THAT one as well - also posted last time.

================

Lets try the Arminian view of the future - where you go to heaven as one of the "FEW" and find that your precious child was one of the "MANY" of Matt 7.

(Note: There is a God, there will be a day of judgment, not everyone is going to heaven. So we would then have the following scenario - that you might "expect" if the doctrines of Grace as seen in the Arminian teachings are true..).

When you go to the Lord and cry out "Oh my great God and Savior - couldn't you have done Something to spare my precious daughter from the fires of the 2nd death?"

By the doctrines of grace as taught in the Arminian model - ... God may well reply

"Why YES my child I loved them with an infinite love as Their tender Heavenly Father JUST as I loved you. I drew them to my heart of infinite love JUST as I drew you. I sent WAVE after WAVE of invitation, heart wrenching plea after plea - BUT In all this I did not force myself on them - JUST as I did not force myself on YOU.

THough I bled and DIED for them - and YES I could have FORCE both YOU and your child - but instead I Sovereignly Chose to Give you BOTH the ABILITY to see the light, to CHOOSE life or to CHOOSE your own selfish will.

And when you CHOSE against me - I CAME back with even stronger ties of love and compassion - ENABLING your choice of LIFE JUST as I did with your precious child.

And in the end - you ACCEPTED and your precious child - OUR precious child - MY precious child chose "NO".

My heart of infinte love is broken over that - but I also Sovereignly CHOOSE to enable my children to CHOOSE.


Of course the Calvinist may say of the Arminian God that we see pictured here "OH how TERRIBLE! How AWFUL" as some have said of the picture that Calvinism paints of God. -- But I know that "not many" will do so - even among Calvinists because the comparison is obvious - blatant and clear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
so it remains the most devastating unnanswered challenge to Calvinism posted on this thread.

Hey, One-Note Bob, we answered this silliness of yours a few months ago when you kept posting this trash in this forum ad nauseam.

You say that God is unfair in saving some and not saving others. Frankly, you have no standing as a creature to call your Creator unfair.

If your Arminian scheme was true(praise God it is not), then no one would be saved as your scheme requires man to do something that he not able to do - contribute something to his own salvation and be able to boast.

[ April 18, 2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Ken the Spurgeonite ]

 

[Yelsew]

Frankly, there'll be no looking back or over the ramparts, or any other hindsight. So, the issue of lost friends and family is a completely moot point! Not worthy of discussion. No one in heaven is going to grieve over those who did not respond in belief.

Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life..." so unless one comes through Jesus, they ain't gonna make it!

There will be emotional activity in Heaven, because Joy is an emotion, exceeding happiness is an emotion, etc.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Not worthy of discussion.

Yea, Yelsew! Another vote against the silly tirade of One-Note Bob.

 

[Yelsew]

Don't make too much of my statement Ken, there is much that BobRyan brings to this Forum that is exactly what we should discuss.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Don't make too much of my statement Ken, there is much that BobRyan brings to this Forum that is exactly what we should discuss.

I agree.

But his one-note tirade isn't one of them.

 

[BobRyan]

Ken posts the most substantive response from the Calvinist camp - to date:

Hey, One-Note Bob....

I congratulate my Calvinist bretheren for making it that far in their substantive response to the problem the scenario poses for Calvinism.

It is certainly fair to expect them to note that in their continual dodge of an actual answer - the re-posting of the problem-scenario will just continue to plague them.

It is my belief that as singularly devastating points are made against Calvinism - to which there can be "no response" - they will content themselves to complain "of its existence" rather than seek for substantive replies.

However I did not ask that they demonstrate that point over-and-over-and-over again. They do that as an added bonus.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Yelsew--
Frankly, there'll be no looking back or over the ramparts, or any other hindsight. So, the issue of lost friends and family is a completely moot point! Not worthy of discussion. No one in heaven is going to grieve over those who did not respond in belief.

The idea that saints Love mankind "less" in heaven is foreign to scripture and the "God of Love". (Let alone loving their own dear children "less" or "not at all" as you suppose.)

Rev 14:10 says that the wicked suffer "IN the Presence of the Lamb and of his saints". Literal, real, immediate presence.

Yelsew -
Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life..." so unless one comes through Jesus, they ain't gonna make it!

Read the Arminian scenario posted. The point you make here is not debated. It is the point in common.

The contrast between what the two models predicts is not "that we won't love our children anymore" as you propose. (Although there is a common assumption made in some extreme Calvinist camps that God will "pith" the brains of the saints so they will care as little for their lost children as He does).

Certainly that group has a "grizzley solution" for the dilemma that I posted. But as yet - no one has offerred it here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christ shows all through scripture that even HE mourns over the fate of the lost. His people will never be called to rejoice at the suffering and torment of their own precious children.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

What you say is right BobRyan, but Family relationships in Heaven will not have the meaning or importance they do in this life. After the judgment we have no insight into the activities in heaven or on the New Earth or New Jerusalem. However we are told that there will be no marrying or marriage in heaven. So why would there be other family considerations? We are all brother's and sisters, but I believe there will be no gender either. What purpose would gender serve?

Let me take this one step further and say that I believe we will not have flesh bodies either. I believe we will recognize each other by our spiritual attributes. Will spouses recognize each other; Parents their children; siblings each other? Sure, why not? Will they grieve for the ones who did not make it? I don't think so. I think those will be blotted from our memory.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Ken posts the most substantive response from the Calvinist camp - to date:

One-Note Bob,

I know I for one answered your silly tirade a few months ago. Perhaps you should find it and review it. Personally, I thought my answer was quite good and sound.

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe you should review your answer and observe that while you speculate that "most will be saved" no matter what Christ said in Matt 7, you dodged the fact that EVEN in your model you have to allow for some parents losing children.

BTW your invalid-Matt7 approach is A defense that few on this board (Calvinist-or-Arminian) would accept.

You do not address the point that EVEN in your strained view of MAtt 7 you can not deny that some parent will see their child is lost.

You do not address the points raised you simply argue that "fewER parents will have that problem" in your "Matt7-is-wrong" theology, than in mine.

I can hardly assign the "matt-7-is-wrong" defense to the Calvinists on this board as "Their answer" and I don't think you would either.

Maybe you are just obfuscating hoping that We "won't remember" your non-Calvinist non-Arminian solution??

In Christ,

Bob