Christ was Arminian?

[Yelsew]

(BTW - the "virgin" status of the 144,000 saints of Rev 14 has to do with the James 4 concept of adultery vs purity seen in Rev 12. Not the idea that "they have no literal children").

BobRyan, James used the term 'adulterer' not as one who who is unfaithful to one's spouse, but rather as one who adulterates the faith, clinging to the ways of the world. Revelations 14:4 specifically states "undefiled by women", having not joined the flesh of two into one.

James 4:4. Adulterers! Do you not realize that love for the world is hatred for God? Anyone who chooses the world for a friend is constituted an enemy of God.

Revelation 14:4,5. These are the sons who have kept their virginity and not been defiled with women; they follow the Lamb wherever he goes; they, out of all people, have been redeemed to be the first-fruits for God and for the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths and no fault can be found in them.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
On the contrary - in many respects you have "made my case easier".

Only in your dreams, Bob.

But you can continue to whistle past the graveyard of your theology if you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(BTW - the "virgin" status of the 144,000 saints of Rev 14 has to do with the James 4 concept of adultery vs purity seen in Rev 12. Not the idea that "they have no literal children").
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yelsew
BobRyan, James used the term 'adulterer' not as one who who is unfaithful to one's spouse, but rather as one who adulterates the faith, clinging to the ways of the world.

Exactly. And Rev 12 "the Pure Woman" the church, is also represented in that same context.

The Rev 14 as virgins and undefiled in their language represents those who hold to the pure faith. Purity in doctrine and faith just as we see in Rev 12 and in James 4. "Undefiled" by doctrinal errors of false religions RATHER than "undefiled by women - as though women as human beings defile men by their very presence or by marriage to them".

Yelsew
Revelations 14:4 specifically states "undefiled by women", having not joined the flesh of two into one.

Indeed not "contaminated" by having contact with the flesh of a woman - or intimate contact with the flesh of a woman.

You can either choose the Rev 12, James 4 "context" for that "contamination" OR you can choose (as you seem to be doing) that it is the entire female gender that is the contaminant and males that keep themselved "pure" by not having anything to do with the contaminants (women) are being identified.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James 4:4. Adulterers! Do you not realize that love for the world is hatred for God? Anyone who chooses the world for a friend is constituted an enemy of God.

That is the view of "contamination" that has "spiritual value in the kingdom of God".

Declaring all women to "BE" contaminants by their "GENDER" alone - is not in harmony with the Gospel (neither male nor female IN Christ) or by any teaching in the NT or by the Apostles OR by any of God's Word.


Revelation 14:4,5. These are the sons who have kept their virginity and not been defiled with women; they follow the Lamb wherever he goes; they, out of all people, have been redeemed to be the first-fruits for God and for the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths and no fault can be found in them.

No "LIE" and not "Contamination" by mixing in with false doctrines of apostate churches.

Unless of course you reject the literal "Neither male nor female" tearing down of the dividing wall and the literal "acceptance under the gospel" of BOTH GENDERS. If you "reject" that then you might interpret Rev 14 to mean "males that have not been contaminated by having intimate contact with a female".

But you are "going it alone" if you choose that view of the Gospel - the Bible does not endorse it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

BobRyan,
Believing as you do negates Jesus' celebacy, and 'virginity'. It also negates Paul's declarations on the subject of marriage. That is, that it is better to remain unmarried.

Therefore the 144,000 of Revelation 14:1-6 are unmarried persons, in the same manner that Jesus was unmarried. They followed Jesus.

Marriage is not against God's plan, He did say to be fruitful and multiply, but it is not the purest form of following Jesus.

Having been defiled by woman, I can assure you that if I had not been it would be so very much easier to be true to God, because I could then devote 100% of my time and energy to God. I think you will agree that is God's ideal!

Frankly, I think your interpretation goes beyond the intent of scripture.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, it may be "better" not to touch a woman (more time & energy to devote to God, etc), but still, if you do touch one in the godly context of marriage, it is not " defilement. That connotates sin, and marriage is not sin, even if celibacy may be better for giving god more attention.
"Women" in Bible prophecy do in fact represent the faith or churches. The false church is seen in ch.17, and ironically enough, it has a history of teaching that sex is evil or "defiling", but look how its celibate priests are going off the deep end now.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Yes, it may be "better" not to touch a woman (more time & energy to devote to God, etc), but still, if you do touch one in the godly context of marriage, it is not " defilement. That connotates sin, and marriage is not sin, even if celibacy may be better for giving god more attention.
"Women" in Bible prophecy do in fact represent the faith or churches. The false church is seen in ch.17, and ironically enough, it has a history of teaching that sex is evil or "defiling", but look how its celibate priests are going off the deep end now.

"in sin was I conceived" Was David Illigitimate?

Anything that enters into purity is a defilement to that purity.

So you are saying that the 144,000 are churchless? I can live with that!

 

[BobRyan]

Yelsew
Believing as you do negates Jesus' celebacy, and 'virginity'. It also negates Paul's declarations on the subject of marriage. That is, that it is better to remain unmarried.

You are wrong in that regard.

Just as James 4 speaking of "adultery" as Christians in compromise with worldly doctrines and standards does NOT contradict the REAL physical concept of Adultery (such as the sermon on the mount) - SO the "purity" of Rev 12 and 14 vs the Impurity of Rev 17 does not negate REAL physical virginity.

However in Christ's case - We are not told that "He was not DEFILED by contacting a woman" OR that His decision to not marry was so a woman would not "defile him".

There is no such reference for that in all of scripture. Never is marriage called "defilement of the man".

Yelsew
Therefore the 144,000 of Revelation 14:1-6 are unmarried persons, in the same manner that Jesus was unmarried. They followed Jesus.

They are not "DEFILED" as He was not defiled. But that has nothing to do with marriage being an institution "DEFILEMENT of a man"

Yelsew

Having been defiled by woman, I can assure you that if I had not been it would be so very much easier to be true to God, because I could then devote 100% of my time and energy to God.
I think you will agree that is God's ideal!

Paul never calls marriage "Defilment by a woman".

RATHER Paul URGES that marriage be PURE and UNDEFILED. Heb 13:4

James and John in Revelation deal with ANOTHER topic which is "Pure and UNDEFILED religion" James 1:27 4:1-6, Rev 12.

Marriag itself is never called a defilement of man - RATHER man is to assure that it is NOT defiled.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
I don't think I've denied the existence of "the elect". In fact I have stated that the "the elect" are the 144,000 of Revelation 14:1-6. That is 12,000 each out of each of the twelve tribes of Israel. This makes more sense because they are "undefiled" by women as Jesus was, lived a "righteous" life (not necessarily sinless, but righteous). Jesus sanctified them out of the saints, thus they are the "Elect".

That is significantly different than the Calvinist "elect".

Scripture uses the term "elect" and its cognates with clear reference to people other than the 144,000. That should settle the matter and be sufficient for you to conform your thinking to the revelation of God.

Bob,

Since you like the parent child conversation, how loving would a parent be who stood in teh dining room and called their infant to come to dinner? How concerned would that parent be? How ludicrous would it be for that parent to expect that child to come and eat? How loving would it be for that parent to call that child once, twice, or even many times, with great love and compassion? It would be silly ... But that is exactly the God you have depicted ... a God who calls people who are unable to come. Thankfully, the God of Scripture is not the impotent pleading God you have made him out to be. The God of Scripture is a God who pleads with results ... He effects the salvation of those whom he effectually calls. Your depiction has nothing to do with Scripture. It is a play on the emotions of the unlearned and unthinking to convince them to abandon Scripture in favor of human rationality. I am glad that my God is not your God. If he were, I would never preach again.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Since you like the parent child conversation, how loving would a parent be who stood in teh dining room and called their infant to come to dinner? How concerned would that parent be? How ludicrous would it be for that parent to expect that child to come and eat? How loving would it be for that parent to call that child once, twice, or even many times, with great love and compassion? It would be silly ... But that is exactly the God you have depicted ... a God who calls people who are unable to come.

You are applying your own view of humanity to Bob's view of God. You should know that's an inaccurate and uncompelling argument.

He effects the salvation of those whom he effectually calls.

And you must realize that not everyone agrees with effectual calling, Most people believe that God calls all men. You can't just take that as a theological given.

Your depiction has nothing to do with Scripture. It is a play on the emotions of the unlearned and unthinking to convince them to abandon Scripture in favor of human rationality. I am glad that my God is not your God. If he were, I would never preach again.

Do you not see what you just did? You lambasted him for constructing an argument based on emotion, then in the last two sentence, you made your own argument that is based upon evoking an emotional response.

Quite interesting, I should think.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
You are applying your own view of humanity to Bob's view of God. You should know that's an inaccurate and uncompelling argument.

What?? Surely you are kidding. Bob brought up the parent child relationship and he is the one who claimed that God was looking down at this child saying I called you, pleaded with you, etc etc etc. Did you miss that part??

And you must realize that not everyone agrees with effectual calling, Most people believe that God calls all men. You can't just take that as a theological given.

Agreement is not the test of truth. It is not up for a vote. If a person doesn't agree with it, then it is they who need to change to conform their views with the teaching of Scripture.

Do you not see what you just did? You lambasted him for constructing an argument based on emotion, then in the last two sentence, you made your own argument that is based upon evoking an emotional response.

Quite interesting, I should think.

No I didn't. This doesn't even make sense. I was not trying to evoke an emotional response and I said nothing emotional at all. My point is that if God is not actively and effectually calling people to himself, no one will be saved and preaching will be useless. That is why I would never preach. There is nothing emotional about it. It is theological in nature.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Since you like the parent child conversation, how loving would a parent be who stood in teh dining room and called their infant to come to dinner? How concerned would that parent be? How ludicrous would it be for that parent to expect that child to come and eat? How loving would it be for that parent to call that child once, twice, or even many times, with great love and compassion? It would be silly ... But that is exactly the God you have depicted ... a God who calls people who are unable to come. Thankfully, the God of Scripture is not the impotent pleading God you have made him out to be. The God of Scripture is a God who pleads with results ... He effects the salvation of those whom he effectually calls. Your depiction has nothing to do with Scripture. It is a play on the emotions of the unlearned and unthinking to convince them to abandon Scripture in favor of human rationality. I am glad that my God is not your God. If he were, I would never preach again.

It is ironic that you choose to attack an Arminian with this type of reasoning. Calvinists are the ones who teach that God calls all man through the general calling that has no effect on man unless they are effectually called. This makes God out at the parent calling his infant child who is unable to come and then condemning him to torture when he refuses to do that which his is unable to do.

Arminians believe that God calls all man to him with a geniune call to repentance and faith and everyone has the ability to respond to that calling by their own volitional choice. You teach that most cannot respond to the calling of God and are in essesence just like infants who are unable to respond to the longing of the parent.

"O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
What?? Surely you are kidding. Bob brought up the parent child relationship and he is the one who claimed that God was looking down at this child saying I called you, pleaded with you, etc etc etc. Did you miss that part??

You stated that "Since you like the parent child conversation, how loving would a parent be who stood in teh dining room and called their infant to come to dinner? How concerned would that parent be? How ludicrous would it be for that parent to expect that child to come and eat? How loving would it be for that parent to call that child once, twice, or even many times, with great love and compassion? It would be silly." Bob doesn't agree that man is completely unable to respond, so your illustration does not work. You differ in terms of what you believe regarding man's ability to respond to the call of God.

Agreement is not the test of truth. It is not up for a vote. If a person doesn't agree with it, then it is they who need to change to conform their views with the teaching of Scripture.

Oh, I agree with that - but if you differ in an interpretation, you can't just say "such-and-such" and expect it to be taken as a given. That's what Bible-Belted is hammering Brother Bill about in another post. When you state, "He effects the salvation of those whom he effectually calls," there are a great number of people who do not see such a statement supported by Scripture, no matter how much you believe that statement to be true.

No I didn't. This doesn't even make sense. I was not trying to evoke an emotional response and I said nothing emotional at all. My point is that if God is not actively and effectually calling people to himself, no one will be saved and preaching will be useless. That is why I would never preach. There is nothing emotional about it. It is theological in nature. [/QB]

It was an emotional appeal, either way. "I am glad that my God is not your God. If he were, I would never preach again." Whether you see it or not, your statement is an emotional appeal. Or does the word "glad" not strike an emotion for you?

And your statement that "My point is that if God is not actively and effectually calling people to himself, no one will be saved and preaching will be useless," is quite illogical. The Arminian side agrees that God is actively calling people to himself, yet they find preaching to be very useful and they are seeing people saved. Your statement there fails.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
"O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing! [/QB]

In other words, is this what you are saying the Calvinist interpretation of this must logically be: "Ah, man! Why didn't I effectually call you, Jerusalem? I really wanted you to come to me, but I forgot to call you!"

Interesting.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I don't think we want to say as Christians that when a woman consummates her relationship to a man through physical union that one has defiled the other. In fact, rather than it being sin God uses this illustration of union to explain our intimate relationship as fleshly/human beings with Jesus Christ when we come into a living faith with Him.

That's why we call it 'holy matrimony' rather than a profane union with a man and a woman.

My wedding book says, 'The union into which you are now to enter is the closest and tenderest into which human beings can come. It is a union founded upon mutual understanding and affection, and to Christian people it is a union in the Lord . . .'

The only time a union becomes a sin is when a couple cohabit outside the marriage union ministered by a lawful and or spiritual authority, or a Christian become involved with an unsaved person. The Apostle Paul uses the idea of that person being joined with a courtesan. [I Corintians 6:15]

In John 17 Jesus said, 'That they may be one; as Thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. . . . that they may be one as we are One.' [verses 21 & 22] Just as all true believers are one spirit with the Triune Godhead, [ I Corinthians 6:17] so too, the Christian man and woman are spiritually one.

Just because the Bible say that 'we were conceived in sin' does not mean that everytime a Christian mother has a baby that she has become defiled. God is only trying to get us to understand that a person has to be responsible for the Adamic nature and sins of commission. While we have a depraved side of our nature as sinners, [Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12] we also have an aspect of our nature that is created in 'the image of God.' [Genesis 5:1; 9:6; John 1:9; I Corinthians 11:7b {and also the woman} James 3:9c]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Bill,

Your post was to the point and convincing. God does have a concern for all of His created beings. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent, so too God lifted up Jesus on the Cross so ' . . . whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.' [John 3:14-15] I see no limitations or qualifications as to who may come to Christ. Therefore, we may clearly believe that, as you said, all are included in His general call.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
It is ironic that you choose to attack an Arminian with this type of reasoning. Calvinists are the ones who teach that God calls all man through the general calling that has no effect on man unless they are effectually called.

Scripture teaches this.

This makes God out at the parent calling his infant child who is unable to come and then condemning him to torture when he refuses to do that which his is unable to do.

No it doesn't. Man refuses to respond and God condemns him because of his own willing choice to sin.

Arminians believe that God calls all man to him with a geniune call to repentance and faith and everyone has the ability to respond to that calling by their own volitional choice.

But Scripture does not teach this last part. Scripture explicitly denies this last part.

You teach that most cannot respond to the calling of God and are in essesence just like infants who are unable to respond to the longing of the parent.

No ... We, like Scripture, teach that man is dead (not an infant) and because of his deadness in sin, he lives like it (Eph 2:1-3).

I remember now why I quite posting for the most part. This is like beating your head against the wall to talk to people who do not share your view of Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Bob doesn't agree that man is completely unable to respond, so your illustration does not work. You differ in terms of what you believe regarding man's ability to respond to the call of God.

But as I previously said, agreement is not the test of truth. When Scripture teaches something, we are to hold it without apology, regardless of who disagrees. Bob's faulty theology has led him down a wrong path.

Oh, I agree with that - but if you differ in an interpretation, you can't just say "such-and-such" and expect it to be taken as a given.

We have not taken it as a given. We have demonstrated it from Scripture and there has been no credible challenge mounted against it. Every challenge depends on faulty reasoning which we have shown. This becomes an issue of the authority of clear Scripture.

It was an emotional appeal, either way. "I am glad that my God is not your God. If he were, I would never preach again." Whether you see it or not, your statement is an emotional appeal. Or does the word "glad" not strike an emotion for you?

No it doesn't. As the author who know what I intended, I can say with absolute authority that it was not an emotional appeal.

And your statement that "My point is that if God is not actively and effectually calling people to himself, no one will be saved and preaching will be useless," is quite illogical. The Arminian side agrees that God is actively calling people to himself, yet they find preaching to be very useful and they are seeing people saved. Your statement there fails.

But they do not agree that he is effectively calling people to themselves. And that is the difference. Their preaching is useful and people are saved in spite of their theology and not because of it, for which I am glad.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Brother Bill,

Your post was to the point and convincing. God does have a concern for all of His created beings. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent, so too God lifted up Jesus on the Cross so ' . . . whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.' [John 3:14-15] I see no limitations or qualifications as to who may come to Christ. Therefore, we may clearly believe that, as you said, all are included in His general call.

And we agree with what you have said here. The only thing that keeps man away from God is his own sinful choices.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
But as I previously said, agreement is not the test of truth. When Scripture teaches something, we are to hold it without apology, regardless of who disagrees. Bob's faulty theology has led him down a wrong path.

But he, along with many others, would state that your theology is faulty. We believe that Scripture states that God calls all men, and that there is no such thing as "effectual calling."

We have not taken it as a given. We have demonstrated it from Scripture and there has been no credible challenge mounted against it. Every challenge depends on faulty reasoning which we have shown. This becomes an issue of the authority of clear Scripture.

This just shows your lack of accepting that other wise theologians have shown that your position is faulty.

No it doesn't. As the author who know what I intended, I can say with absolute authority that it was not an emotional appeal.

Again - you have to defend your use of emotional language. You may not see it as such, but you still used emotional language. I can't help that you do not understand.

But they do not agree that he is effectively calling people to themselves. And that is the difference. Their preaching is useful and people are saved in spite of their theology and not because of it, for which I am glad.

Calvinist preaching is useful and people are saved in spite of their theology, and not because of it, for which I am glad. See how that works? Just asserting that your position is correct doesn't make it so. I don't think that you are as postmodern as that.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
It is ironic that you choose to attack an Arminian with this type of reasoning. Calvinists are the ones who teach that God calls all man through the general calling that has no effect on man unless they are effectually called.

Scripture teaches this.</font>[/QUOTE]Where? Just saying so doesn't make it so.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Arminians believe that God calls all man to him with a geniune call to repentance and faith and everyone has the ability to respond to that calling by their own volitional choice.

But Scripture does not teach this last part. Scripture explicitly denies this last part.</font>[/QUOTE]And you've been presented SCripture that points to the contrary. Again, saying so doesn't make it so.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You teach that most cannot respond to the calling of God and are in essesence just like infants who are unable to respond to the longing of the parent.

No ... We, like Scripture, teach that man is dead (not an infant) and because of his deadness in sin, he lives like it (Eph 2:1-3).</font>[/QUOTE]But the analogy still holds. Sinners are unable to respond to the longing of the parent.

I remember now why I quite posting for the most part. This is like beating your head against the wall to talk to people who do not share your view of Scripture. [/QB]

Get your theology straight and it'll help. As you admit - these are your views of Scripture. They are, to me and most other Christians, not Truth - just your perspective.