Christ was Arminian?

[Yelsew]

Sigh!!! ... Will you ever listen?? The Holy Spirit is not bound by men.

No, but the Holy Spirit can be stifled by man!

The sinner will yield to Christ when the Holy Spirit effectually calls him, i.e., sets him apart to salvation, as the Bible teaches.

All men are CALLED to Salvation! Salvation is the place to which man can be called. It is up to man to make the journey to salvation by submitting himself to God through faith in Jesus. Faith cometh by hearing and Hearing by the Word of God.

No one teaches that the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. You keep making that up.

You must understand that Spirit is impervious to mass. Spirit permeates mass passing though it without impedence or hinderence, therefore the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted by anything except that which is also spirit. The "will" of man is "of the spirit", therefore the will of man can resist the Holy Spirit. It is the Job of the Holy Spirit to convince the human spirit to be submissive to God. The Holy Spirit is a "gentleman" and does not force itself upon the human spirit, but rather patiently waits at the door to the human spirit knocking, so that when the human spirit "hears" the knocking, opens they door, the Holy Spirit then can enter by invitation and become effectual in transforming the human spirit from sinner to saint.

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.

It helps to understand the principles of spiritual warfare too! By believing that the Holy Spirit forces Himself upon human spirit is simply inconsistant with the many examples of how God actually conducts spiritual warfare.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob posts the flaw in Larry's "infants can't come to you" argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
You are not following the point Larry.

EVEN Calvinists "admit" that the "DRAWING" of Christ - the SUPERNATURAL drawing of Christ - ENABLES the action that "depravity" Disables.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry
I followed your point quite well. You did not even respond to mine.

I thought I did respond to your "infants-can't-respond" point by showing that EVEN Calvinist admit that "the DRAWING of Christ" DOES enable response.

What other point did you make?

Larry
The drawing enables the action for sure.

Well that is what I was thinking.

Larry
IT also ensures it, as the Bible teaches, though you do not.

Christ said "I STAND at the door and knock - thus CAUSING EVERY MAN to HEAR and To OPEN else my knocking would not be effective".

ooops. That was not Christ that said that.

Christ said "I STAND at the door and knock if ANY man hear and OPEN THEN I will come in".

He does not say That "BECAUSE I am knocking ALL MEN WILL OPEN the door" as you propose.

NEITHER does John 12:32 say "BECAUSE I DRAW ALL MEN - ALL MEN WILL COME to Me" as you propose.

Larry
The drawing power of God results in belief according to Christ himself in John 6.

Yes - it does in THOSE who "HEAR and who OPEN" but He does not "HEAR for them" nor does He "OPEN for them".

Larry
(Don't try John 12

Too late. Tried it. Read it. Believed it.

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when the parent ENABLES the child to drink - and then places the cup to the lips and says "now drink" - it makes perfect sense for the child - who MAKES the choice - to "actually drink".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry
How does a parent enable a child to drink?

The infant gets picked up. The drink gets poured. The head gets lifted. The cup is placed to the lips - but the child still has to choose to drink water that they were not able to access of their own strength.

Larry 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.

The lifeless ground - dead in sin (in Luke 8:4-14) has LIFE generated within and springs to life. The plant GROWS out of the dead ground. Then DIES.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is true EVEN for Calvinists who ADMIT - that the DRAWING of Christ ENABLES the activity that depravity DISABLES.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Then you would "think" that the infant-can't-drink illustration would not be coming around after the "CHRIST draws ALL MANKIND" solution is accepted.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And indeed - the Calvinist vs Arminian future "Scenarios" do show a "difference".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry
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.

Wrong - the scenario showed explicitly that BOTH those who are ENABLED and go to heaven and those who are ENABLED and go to hell rejected the waves of grace but eventually those who are ENBALED and went to heaven OPENED the DOOR and Christ CAME IN.

Your argument above is like saying that Christ "did not bother to protect Adam and Eve though He COULD HAVE". But in fact God DID protect them - He just did not force their will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

He can? Your saying he can, but he won't? I thought you believed that no one "can" come to Christ unless they were effectually called? Are you changing your position or just playing semantical games to avoid the debate? Honestly, I don't follow you here. Please explain.

YOu simply choose not to accept what Scripture says about this point.

The confusion is that you use passages like John 6 to support your view which says, "no one can" yet you have just said they can but they choose not to by their own free will. I'm confused. Are they able or not? If not, why do you use apply a verse that says, "no one can" in the manner Calvinists do?

 

[DanielFive]

EVEN Calvinists "admit" that the "DRAWING" of Christ - the SUPERNATURAL drawing of Christ - ENABLES the action that "depravity" Disables.

So when the parent ENABLES the child to drink - and then places the cup to the lips and says "now drink" - it makes perfect sense for the child - who MAKES the choice - to "actually drink".

This example only demonstrates the calvinist position.

A still-born child will not drink.

A spiritually dead sinner will not come to Christ.

A newly born child is drawn to the milk by the fact that it hungers and thirsts, it has no means of feeding itself. God has created that child and given it the desire to eat and drink. A child doesn't drink because it makes an intellectual decision to do so. It drinks because the life that is in it makes it drink.

A spiritually awakened sinner is similarly drawn (irresistably) to the word by means of Gods imputing to them a spiritual hunger and thirst.
This God given thirst can only be satisfied by coming to Christ.

 

[KenH]

Excellent post, Enda.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by enda:
This example only demonstrates the calvinist position.

A still-born child will not drink.

A spiritually dead sinner will not come to Christ.

A newly born child is drawn to the milk by the fact that it hungers and thirsts, it has no means of feeding itself. God has created that child and given it the desire to eat and drink. A child doesn't drink because it makes an intellectual decision to do so. It drinks because the life that is in it makes it drink.

A spiritually awakened sinner is similarly drawn (irresistably) to the word by means of Gods imputing to them a spiritual hunger and thirst.
This God given thirst can only be satisfied by coming to Christ. [/QB]

Scripture?

 

[Yelsew]

So when the parent ENABLES the child to drink - and then places the cup to the lips and says "now drink" - it makes perfect sense for the child - who MAKES the choice - to "actually drink".

Assuming you are still speaking of infants here, drinking is not a conscious thought out action for an infant. Infants drink because their bodies tell them to drink. The presentation of the drinkable substance enables the drinking only to the point that there is something to drink. It doesn't matter to the infant what the substance is until the substance is in the mouth or on its way to the stomach.

Therefore at best this is a very poor choice of illustration for spiritual matters.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Assuming you are still speaking of infants here, drinking is not a conscious thought out action for an infant. Infants drink because their bodies tell them to drink. The presentation of the drinkable substance enables the drinking only to the point that there is something to drink. It doesn't matter to the infant what the substance is until the substance is in the mouth or on its way to the stomach.

Read The Nature of the Child, by Jerome Kagan. Babies have much more volition than most give them credit for, including whether or not to drink... or have you never seen am imfamt who pouted and refused to drink his mother's milk at the same time as crying in hunger?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Brother Bill clearly pointed out your flawed theological stance.

I must have missed that post. The one I saw repeated old, well answered, non-arguments.

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.

He has an option. He can turn to Christ at any time he wants to. His own sin is the only thing keeping him fromt it. (Man I feel like broken record here. I have said this so many times. It is available so many places and some people just won't listen.)

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.

I am faithful to Scripture, not Calvinism. God does sovereignly elect apart from human free will and then regenerates man so that he willingly responds. That is not the puppeteer that you would like him to be. That is the God of Scripture. If he did not do this, then no one would be saved.

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]

I did so, and that is why I rejected the position you hold.

Although I believe you are taking an extreme Calvinistic view,

My view is actually very moderately Calvinistic.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
No, but the Holy Spirit can be stifled by man!

Provided by that by "stifled' you mean resisted, thanks for repeating what I already said. If by that you mean something else, you will have to explain yourself.

All men are CALLED to Salvation! Salvation is the place to which man can be called. It is up to man to make the journey to salvation by submitting himself to God through faith in Jesus. Faith cometh by hearing and Hearing by the Word of God.

Again, there is clearly an effectual call in Scripture that results in salvation. Not all receive that call. All do receive the general call. This is simple truth that you should know by now.

You must understand that Spirit is impervious to mass. Spirit permeates mass passing though it without impedence or hinderence, therefore the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted by anything except that which is also spirit. The "will" of man is "of the spirit", therefore the will of man can resist the Holy Spirit. It is the Job of the Holy Spirit to convince the human spirit to be submissive to God. The Holy Spirit is a "gentleman" and does not force itself upon the human spirit, but rather patiently waits at the door to the human spirit knocking, so that when the human spirit "hears" the knocking, opens they door, the Holy Spirit then can enter by invitation and become effectual in transforming the human spirit from sinner to saint.

Not sure what "spirit" and "Mass" have to do with this discussion. They have no apparent relevance so I will just skip this paragraph.

By believing that the Holy Spirit forces Himself upon human spirit is simply inconsistant with the many examples of how God actually conducts spiritual warfare.

I agree. I don't believe that the HOly Spirit forces himself on anyone. That is a distortion of the truth which I spoke earlier. STOP MAKING STUFF UP!!!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
What other point did you make?

That your God sends people's children to hell and his only response to their grief is "I could have done something if I ahd chosen to but I decided not to." Your end is no different.

Christ said "I STAND at the door and knock - thus CAUSING EVERY MAN to HEAR and To OPEN else my knocking would not be effective".

ooops. That was not Christ that said that.

Christ said "I STAND at the door and knock if ANY man hear and OPEN THEN I will come in".

He does not say That "BECAUSE I am knocking ALL MEN WILL OPEN the door" as you propose.

Where did I propose this??? YOu, like some others, are making stuff up. If a man opens, Christ will come in.

NEITHER does John 12:32 say "BECAUSE I DRAW ALL MEN - ALL MEN WILL COME to Me" as you propose.

I never proposed this either. Did you really read my post??

Yes - it does in THOSE who "HEAR and who OPEN" but He does not "HEAR for them" nor does He "OPEN for them".

Duh!! another fabulous statement of the obvious.

Too late. Tried it. Read it. Believed it.

NOt if you try to use it to prove that Christ effectually draws all men without exception.

The infant gets picked up. The drink gets poured. The head gets lifted. The cup is placed to the lips - but the child still has to choose to drink water that they were not able to access of their own strength.

YOu have changed the metaphor. I was talking of a parent who fixes a dinner but and simply calls a child to come and eat but does not go up and bring that child down.

The lifeless ground - dead in sin (in Luke 8:4-14) has LIFE generated within and springs to life. The plant GROWS out of the dead ground. Then DIES.

What relevance does this have?

Then you would "think" that the infant-can't-drink illustration would not be coming around after the "CHRIST draws ALL MANKIND" solution is accepted.

The "Christ draws all men" solution that you have proposed has been shown by Scripture to be a faulty understanding. You have based your theology on something Christ did not say, where I have based mine on what Christ did say.

Your argument above is like saying that Christ "did not bother to protect Adam and Eve though He COULD HAVE". But in fact God DID protect them - He just did not force their will.

He protected thme?? What kind of God is that that can only protect people that well?? Did you really think through this argument at all before you wrote it out here? I sure hope not.

God does not force anyone's will. I wish we could dispense with that false notion. We do not believe that. He gives people a new will so that they respond.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
He can? Your saying he can, but he won't? I thought you believed that no one "can" come to Christ unless they were effectually called? Are you changing your position or just playing semantical games to avoid the debate? Honestly, I don't follow you here. Please explain.

For all you claimed to have studied, I can't imagine this would be confusing to you. Are you just being obstinate or have you really not studied as much as you claim?

Man's inability is a moral inability. His refusal is a willful refusal. It is not a semantic game or avoiding debate. It is the answer to the debate.

The confusion is that you use passages like John 6 to support your view which says, "no one can" yet you have just said they can but they choose not to by their own free will. I'm confused. Are they able or not? If not, why do you use apply a verse that says, "no one can" in the manner Calvinists do?

Again, if you understood the debate, this would not be a question. If you are that unfamiliar, just say so so we can proceed on a different basis. The nature of "inability" is what you misunderstand. YOu think that man is "unable" to believe like man is "unable" to lift a semi truck over his head with one hand. But the theological "inability" Is a far different animal. Please study this and then you can move your understanding forward, even if you reject it.

 

[Yelsew]

Pastor Larry,
I knew you would not discuss the truth of spirit, you simply do not understand it!

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by enda:
This example only demonstrates the calvinist position.

A still-born child will not drink.

A spiritually dead sinner will not come to Christ.

A newly born child is drawn to the milk by the fact that it hungers and thirsts, it has no means of feeding itself. God has created that child and given it the desire to eat and drink. A child doesn't drink because it makes an intellectual decision to do so. It drinks because the life that is in it makes it drink.

A spiritually awakened sinner is similarly drawn (irresistably) to the word by means of Gods imputing to them a spiritual hunger and thirst.
This God given thirst can only be satisfied by coming to Christ.

Scripture? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Revelation 22.17

I am not Enda, but here is where I would start the Scriptural search of the stance presented by the post you questioned.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Pastor Larry,
I knew you would not discuss the truth of spirit, you simply do not understand it!

Even so, it is good to be home

Bro. Dallas

 

[DanielFive]

Thanks Ken and Bro Dallas,

Scott,

What part of the argument don't you understand?

Its OK to use a little common sense now and again, but if you need scripture proof let me know where the problem lies.

Enda

 

[Ray Berrian]

'A spiritually awakened sinner is similarly drawn (irresistably) to the word BY MEANS OF GOD'S IMPUTING TO THEM A HUNGER AND THIRST.'

As far as I know God only imputes Christ's 'righteousness' to the sinner. Chapter and verse! Chapter and verse! It sounds good on a post but we have to have documentation.

God creates a spiritual hunger in the lives of every human being, otherwise He would not call all people to believe in Him. [John 3:16; Acts 17:30; I Timothy 2:4,6]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Revelation 22.17

I am not Enda, but here is where I would start the Scriptural search of the stance presented by the post you questioned.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[/QB]

That doesn't address the question:

17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

 

[Frogman]

I agree that all men do possess a spiritual hunger, but to say that the hunger comes from God to those who fill that hunger through black magic, witch-craft, voo-dooism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, etc. ad nauseum is ludicrous. God puts the hunger in man to come to Him through Christ and that man with the hunger created in him by God the Father will accept nothing less than God the Son (John 10).

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

That doesn't address the question:

17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

It addresses fully the question you asked concerning enda's post on the hunger and drawing of man. If this scripture doesn't address the hunger nor the drawing then none of Scripture addresses that question. To say as Bro. Ray has that all men are given this hunger from God is again limiting God while glorifying man.

Bro. Dallas