Christ was Arminian?

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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 </font>[/QUOTE]It says whoever is hungry can come. Whoever is thirsty can drink. It is reading a whole lot into that one Scripture to say that only certain people huger or thirst.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It says whoever is hungry can come. Whoever is thirsty can drink. It is reading a whole lot into that one Scripture to say that only certain people huger or thirst.

Great point!

The Calvinistic interpretation of this text goes against the natural understanding of the language and obvious intent of the author.

One becomes hungry for God and thirsty for God when they know him and understand his divine attibutes through His revelations of Himself. Some choose to drink and eat, others would rather feed their natural appetite. It is their choice and their responsiblity thus it is within their capasity.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Calvinistic interpretation of this text goes against the natural understanding of the language and obvious intent of the author.

No it doesn't. IT goes against your own mind and that is why you once again say things that are not true. Calvinists believe that whoever wants to can come, just like you believe. Accept it and move on.

 

[Frogman]

It says whoever is hungry can come. Whoever is thirsty can drink. It is reading a whole lot into that one Scripture to say that only certain people huger or thirst.

That is your reading of the scripture not mine. I believe we are to proclaim the Gospel to all people and that those who hunger and thirst do so because of the Will of God and they are the 'whosoever' and they come. I never said 'certain' people.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Dallas,

You said, 'To say as Bro. Ray has that all men are given this hunger from God is again limiting God while glorifying man.'

Actually, an unbiased mind would respond by saying that a God who creates a hunger in every human soul, is one who is totally open to human beings and is unprejudiced against no one. The Christian God is opened armed to all human beings and He demonstrates His own magnanimity and glory.

A God who restricts His love, mercy and justice by creating hunger in an isolated few by His own choice, is a God Who has limited His own possibilities and has eclipsed His own glory. This kind of God is one who of His own will and accord has become vengeful and heartless against the less fortunate, non-elect.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It says whoever is hungry can come. Whoever is thirsty can drink. It is reading a whole lot into that one Scripture to say that only certain people huger or thirst.

That is your reading of the scripture not mine. I believe we are to proclaim the Gospel to all people and that those who hunger and thirst do so because of the Will of God and they are the 'whosoever' and they come. I never said 'certain' people.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]But such an interpretation comes from outside this verse - you only offered this verse. That is where the contention is. You bring your own theology into the interpretation of this. You must admit that if this were the only Scripture that existed, you would line up more with the Arminian interpretation than the Calvinist one - not that one is necessarily right, but if this were the only one, that is what we would both think.

 

[Eric B]

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.

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.

It seems thet this whole concept of "moral inability" is the center of this confusion, because it does sound like a semantics game. You have mentioned it many times before, but I guess this "moral inability" does need some more explaining, and what the scriptural basis is.
From what I have seen, it is basically man's guilt from Adam that God has imputed to each individual, making him "just plain guilty because God said so" apart from any choice of his own (or the bad choice itself is "imputed" to him as well). So this "guilt" is "moral" and causes the "free" will to only reject God. But since this is "imputed" to him, it is that person's own fault and not God's, once again, simply because God said so, even though the person could not have done anything to not wind up in that position, and now can't do anything to get out of it. Being that there are many different Calvinists who put things many different ways, I hope this covers the basic idea I have gathered.
But still, since man is bound by time, and is ultimately powerless over all of this, it seems more consistent and simpler to me just to say that God has written a script, with the non-elect as preordained to destruction, rather than "they can choose if they want to", which in all practical matters [i.e. how it actually works out in "practice"] is not the case. But it does seem that this jargon seems to have been constructed so that moderate Calvinists can maintain particular election and the preterition of the non-elect, while deflecting criticism for/disclaiming the harder implications of God essentially damning helpless people for nothing they could have helped. But people see though this and are attacking the underlying implications, and that is why it seems they are being "obstinate" and you have to repeat the same things over and over to them. This you'll have to understand.
So as I had once said before, I think the real debate we are getting at here is the scripturality of "moral inability" and "imputation of guilt" (outside of the sin nature passed down).

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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?

Larry, you're on your high horse again. Be a real Pastor by getting down off of your horse named "Know it all" and begin speaking to me like one brother ought to speak to another. Thank you.

When have I ever claimed anything about how much I have studied? I have been very careful not to get into my personal credentials thank you very much. You must be confusing me with Ray.

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.

Semantics! But if it would make you feel better go back to all my posts that say "total inability" and add in the word "moral" so that they read "total moral inability".

The arguments don't change one bit. I know its not physical ability, duh. You're avoiding the point by trying to switch the terms around when the different terms still afford the same exact arguments against them, which you HAVE NOT answered!

posted by Brother BillThe 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?

Posted by Larry on his high horseAgain, 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.

Once again you are playing a semantical game with me. You say man "can" but then you quote a verse that says "no one can" to prove your position. You contradict yourself.

By your argument you are saying man is physically able to believe but he is morally unable to believe. this is absurd! How does one phyiscally believe? He can show his faith by his works, but belief is an internal, moral decision.

So, you argue that man can but he won't, yet you use verses that say "can" not "will" to support your views. This is the contradiction.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Larry, you're on your high horse again. Be a real Pastor by getting down off of your horse named "Know it all" and begin speaking to me like one brother ought to speak to another. Thank you.

When have I ever claimed anything about how much I have studied? I have been very careful not to get into my personal credentials thank you very much. You must be confusing me with Ray.

You claim to be an ex-calvinist who had studied this in depth for nine years (I believe that was the number you gave). I am not trying to be a "know it all." I am simply amazed. That's all. I do not know everything, not by a long shot.

Semantics! But if it would make you feel better go back to all my posts that say "total inability" and add in the word "moral" so that they read "total moral inability".

I can't see how this is semantics. It never has been in theological discussion before, to my knowledge. The issue is that man's inability does not mean he doesn't hear and understand. It means that sin has affected his moral ability so that he does not desire and cannot turn from it. THat is his sin nature. Your comments lead me to believe you think Calvinists are saying that the natural man is dumb and unable ot understand the sentences that communicate the message and that is simply not it.

You say man "can" but then you quote a verse that says "no one can" to prove your position. You contradict yourself.

I think my can had to do with mental ability, which is what you impugned. My "cannot" had to do with spiritual ability.

By your argument you are saying man is physically able to believe but he is morally unable to believe. this is absurd! How does one phyiscally believe? He can show his faith by his works, but belief is an internal, moral decision.

Again, absurd only because 1) you misunderstood what I said or 2) you don't understand the debate and the way terms are used. Physically able means his mind can comprehend and process the propositional truths. Morally unable means his nature turns him away from God and to sin.

So, you argue that man can but he won't, yet you use verses that say "can" not "will" to support your views. This is the contradiction.

No it's not, not to those who understand what is going on here in the debate. Perhaps I am alone here. I don't think so but perhaps I am. Perhaps I just read and run in different circles than you do. Where I come from, this is all pretty common knowledge. I am not trying put you down Bill. It is just that based on some things you have said in the past, I am surprised by the way that you are approaching some of this.

 

[DanielFive]

By your argument you are saying man is physically able to believe but he is morally unable to believe.

Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by enda:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> By your argument you are saying man is physically able to believe but he is morally unable to believe.

Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart. </font>[/QUOTE]Scripture?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Scripture?

Psalm 51:12(NASB)
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.

John 3:6-8(NASB)
6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken the Spurgeonite:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
[qb] Scripture?

Psalm 51:12(NASB)
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.</font>[/QUOTE]How does this answer "Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart." David has already been saved, and is asking for GOd to restore his joy - not his salvation.

John 3:6-8(NASB)
6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

ANd how does this answer, "Man can believe with the head, only the Holy Spirit can make him believe in his heart?" You're taking huge jumps in logic - if this is the best you can do, then there must not be any Scripture that answers the assertion

 

[KenH]

The writer in the that verse from Psalms was asking God to give him a willing spirit. The need is the same before or after regeneration.

Also, the verse in John 3 says the Spirit is the one that gives birth. Man doesn't give birth to himself physically, and neither does he do so spiritually.

Hey, Scott, let's quit tiptoeing around. Let's go mano a mano in a formal debate as has been talked about before - no rhetoric, no mumbo jumbo, no perjoratives. Are you up to it?

 

[BobRyan]

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

Pastor Larry
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.

In fact I DID respond to that. I SHOWED in the Arminian scenario that God does NOT say "I COULD have if I CARED to" as Calvinist insists that He must say. I SHOWED that in the Arminian scenario "God ENABLES BOTH" to choose. And when that wave of mercy is rejected HE COMES BACK AGAIN - to BOTH. God's response in the Arminian scenario is "I CARED - for BOTH of you even MORE than you do".

And when comparing that to the Calvinist expectation "SURE I COULD have saved her if I had CARED to" Calvinist seem to respond "how horrible to say that God cares for BOTH of you EVEN MORE than you do".


quote:Bob Said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Indeed you DID argue this when you insisted that if Christ acts - if He DRAWS then man MUST Come and be saved.


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

Pastor Larry
I never proposed this either.

Indeed you DID say that when God DRAWS someone - that they MUST be saved.

IN fact we both KNOW that you DO believe that the "ALL MANKIND" that are DRAWN in John 12:32 ARE also saved. Why pretend we don't both know that you think/and-say that very thing??

What is the point of that?

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

Pastor Larry
Duh!! another fabulous statement of the obvious.

When Arminians debate Calvinists it is usually to argue for the veracity of the "obvious".

quote:Bob
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
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.

Your illustration was a faulty Calvinist one. It needed correction so that it would accurately show the Gospel case in which Christ ENABLES what deparavity DISABLES regarding the choice for LIFE - with forcing the will.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
What relevance does this have?

Free will. EVEN in the case of LIFE - fully ENABLED, even having been born again - STILL having the ability to CHOOSE against life - later on.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
The "Christ draws all men" solution that you have proposed has been shown by Scripture to be a faulty understanding.

Not so far

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
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.

You are talking like a true Calvinist - nice going. But you are doing it with Adam and Eve BEFORE THE FALL. And that is brave indeed. Few Calvinists (I find) are willing to do that.

You argue that God "did not protect sinless, righteous, pure - Adam and Eve that HE created in fellowship with Himself". In essence you leave God to blame for the fall of sinless beings as a "Better solution" than "free will EVEN for sinless beings". Will you really argue that Adam was "too depraved to choose anything but sin"? Will you argue "God knew Adam would fall so sinless Adam had no other choice"?? Will you really apply the Calvinist arguments to Adam and charge that "God failed to Protect Adam"???

Fantastic!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[William C]

Larry,

We've been arguing about the ability of a lost man to understand the gospel so that they might believe and be saved. You quote 1 Cor 2:14 which says that natural man is unable understand spiritual things.

I've pointed to Romans 1 which clearly shows that lost man can clearly see and understand the attributes of God.

Your defense is to say that 1 Cor. is talking about the Spiritual ability of man verses Romans 1 which is talking about the physical ability? Do I have that right?

This still doesn't answer the question, "How does one recieve the Spirit so that they can have Spiritual discerment?"

The Spirit comes to those with faith as we see throughout the text. (Gal. 3 and Acts etc)

Your defense to that is that these verses are in reference to the Holy Spirit indwelling and sealing work as opposed to his prior regenerating work. Right?

Where do you get your support scripturally for this prior regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that comes before faith?

 

[DanielFive]

Brother Bill

You've summed up the case pretty well there I think.

This still doesn't answer the question, "How does one recieve the Spirit so that they can have Spiritual discerment?"

The Spirit comes to those with faith as we see throughout the text. (Gal. 3 and Acts etc)

Galatians 3:2 "Recieved ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the HEARING of faith"

Faith is generated by the HEARING of the WORD OF GOD.

James 1:18 "Of his own will begat He us with the WORD of truth"

1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD of God, which liveth and abideth forever"

To answer your question,

There are two agents used in regeneration.

1 The word of God.
2 The Spirit of God.

The only role that man is given in salvation is the duty to preach the Word of God. The reason so few peaople are being saved today is that there is not enough of the Word of God in modern sermons.

Man by preaching brings the Word to the sinners ear, the Holy Spirit takes over bringing the Word through the intellect to the heart. Conviction of sin results.

John 3:8 "...so is everyone that is born of the Spirit"

The ministry of the Holy Spirit is first to convict the sinner and then to convert him, to do the actual work of bringing him into the kingdom of God.

I believe, that where the Word of God is faithfully preached, there you will find the Holy Spirit, covicting and converting sinners.

How does one recieve the Holy Spirit?

You are wrong to say that the Spirit comes to those with faith.

Galatians 5:22 "But the FRUIT of the Spirit is love,joy...FAITH..."

1 Corinthians 12:9 " To another FAITH BY the same SPIRIT.

The Spirit with God the Father and God the Son, is the SOURCE of faith.

This brings us to:

Romans 10:17 "Faith cometh by HEARING and hearing by the WORD of God"

and we're back to where we started :

Galatians 3:2 "Recieved ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the HEARING of faith"

I hope you can now look at this verse differently.

To finalise :

"How does one recieve the Spirit so that they can have Spiritual discerment?"

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is eveyone that is born of the Spirit.

James 1:18
"Of his own will begat He us with the Word of truth."

John 1:13
"which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

All that man can do is to preach the Word of God and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.

I hope you followed the thread of what I was saying, I'm not very good at making myself clear and I'm sure Larry will do a much better job at answering your question but this is what I think anyway.

Your Brother in Christ,

Enda

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In fact I DID respond to that. I SHOWED in the Arminian scenario that God does NOT say "I COULD have if I CARED to" as Calvinist insists that He must say. I SHOWED that in the Arminian scenario "God ENABLES BOTH" to choose. And when that wave of mercy is rejected HE COMES BACK AGAIN - to BOTH. God's response in the Arminian scenario is "I CARED - for BOTH of you even MORE than you do".

Your "showing" was a poor one because you simply asserted it without proof, just as you did with your distorted view of God's acts in the calvinistic view. You did not show that God enables both. How can you say that God really cares when he stops short of doing everything possible to save someone? What kind of care is that?

]Indeed you DID argue this when you insisted that if Christ acts - if He DRAWS then man MUST Come and be saved.

I see your point now and yes I said that because Christ said that in John 6. All that the Father gives to me "will come" to me and I will not cast him out. Your beef is not with me; it is with Christ.

]Indeed you DID say that when God DRAWS someone - that they MUST be saved.

Again, your beef is with Christ; he is the one that said it. I simply repeated it.

IN fact we both KNOW that you DO believe that the "ALL MANKIND" that are DRAWN in John 12:32 ARE also saved. Why pretend we don't both know that you think/and-say that very thing??

Because I did not understand what you were trying to say. You were unclear to me. What I have said is what Scripture says so in accusing me, you are taking on some heavy company.

Your illustration was a faulty Calvinist one. It needed correction so that it would accurately show the Gospel case in which Christ ENABLES what deparavity DISABLES regarding the choice for LIFE - with forcing the will.[/qutoe]So do I get to correct your faulty illustrations? Mine was not faulty. You just didn't like it. Your understanding is flawed. You said God enables all and simply calls them to come and leaves it up to them. I said a parent brings a child into the world and then fixes dinner (i.e., enables them to eat) and then simply calls and leaves it up to the child to come and eat. But that little infant can't come and eat, just as the sinner in his sin can't come and eat. My illustration was not faulty. Your understanding of man's nature and God's work is faulty.

Free will. EVEN in the case of LIFE - fully ENABLED, even having been born again - STILL having the ability to CHOOSE against life - later on.

No. You have clearly not studied that passage very well.

You are talking like a true Calvinist - nice going. But you are doing it with Adam and Eve BEFORE THE FALL. And that is brave indeed. Few Calvinists (I find) are willing to do that.

You argue that God "did not protect sinless, righteous, pure - Adam and Eve that HE created in fellowship with Himself". In essence you leave God to blame for the fall of sinless beings as a "Better solution" than "free will EVEN for sinless beings". Will you really argue that Adam was "too depraved to choose anything but sin"? Will you argue "God knew Adam would fall so sinless Adam had no other choice"?? Will you really apply the Calvinist arguments to Adam and charge that "God failed to Protect Adam"???

No, that failure to protect was your charge Bob. Come on now, don't start that.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Enda,

I believe God gives a certain allotment of 'spiritual discernment' to all of the children of God. In other words we know right living from sin and we know if we 'grieve the Sprit.'

God's gifts to the church are many. 'There are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.' [I Cor. 12:4]

God reminds us that He divides His gifts according to His sovereign will and not so much because we seek certain gifts from Him. [I Cor. 12:11] I think you agree. Right?

 

[DanielFive]

Ray,

Yes I agree with your comment.

The point I was trying to make is that man does nothing to merit the recieving of the Spirit.

God Bless

Enda