Christ was Arminian?

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.

 

Only in your dreams, Bob.

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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

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.

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.

 

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??

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.

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.

 

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!

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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]

 

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.

 

Scripture teaches this.

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

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

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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."

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

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.

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.

 

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

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.

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.

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.