Christ was Arminian?

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
Your "showing" was a poor one because you simply asserted it without proof

Obviously we both know that the CONTRAST of the scenarios was to provide a framework for SHOWING what Calvinism "EXPECTS of God" vs what Arminian "EXPECTS" in this "razor sharp CONTRAST scenario".

The ubiquitous proofs of what Arminianism EXPECTS have been given in triplicate on these forums. As a small example Luke 7 shows MULTIPLE methods and effort REACHING out to those that "REJECTED God' Purpose for themselves".

John 1 shows that "CHRIST CAME to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him NOT".

Rev 3 shows Christ STANDING at the door and KNOCKING WITHOUT qualification as to WHOSE door it is.

THe list is endless. And we both know it.

Pastor LARRY
, just as you did with your distorted view of God's acts in the calvinistic view.

In fact YOUR QUOTE is now the poster child for that Calvinist Scenario. It is using your OWN confession as to what the Calvinist expectation is. Read it again.

We both know that Calvinism expects EXACTLY what the scenario for Calvinism shows.

Pastor Larry
You did not show that God enables both.

The "Scenario" is not a list of proofs - it merely SHOWS what each side "expects". The volumes of posts on "DRAWING ALL MANKIND" have demonstrated CLEARLY the point.

Pretending that the topic has not been posted does not support your argument.

Pastor Larry
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?

Your position requires you to CHARGE GOD with being "uncaring" with His OWN two children - Adam and Eve. This has already been shown to be unsupportable. You simply ignore that and go on.

Your view does not work starting in Genesis 2-3 BEFORE the fall. Your case ends before it ever starts.


quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
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.

On the contrary - I am in harmony with God's Word on this point and you are in the unneasy position of having to claim "The WHOLE WORLD will be SAVED" based on your redefitions on John 12:32.


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

Pastor Larry

So do I get to correct your faulty illustrations?

I adjusted the illustration to accurately reflect the Word of God. You are free to propose any illustration that makes your point.

Pastor Larry
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

Yes, I SAID that God ENABLES and CALLS so that ALL are ENABLED to accept - they merely CHOOSE to do so.

You attempted to say that MY claim was the SAME as a parent CALLING an infant to a dinner that the infant STILL CAN NOT accept. Basically you took your OWN assumptions and placed them into your OWN illustration claiming that your illustration FIT what I was claiming.

Either you just weren't following the point OR you meant to say that your illustration was how YOU view God.

Pastor Larry
, just as the sinner in his sin can't come and eat.

I included the DRAWING of God - even YOU do not deny that that DRAWING ENABLES the sinner to come.

Why keep circling back as IF you don't believe that?? How does that make your case?

Luke 8:4-14 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A non-response.

Luke 8 SHOWED the DEAD-in-sin LIFELESS ground springing for LIFE and then that life DYING.

Impossible to rewrite at this point.

The brevity of your non-response is indicative of the difficulty Luke 8 presents for Calvinism.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[William C]

Originally posted by enda:
You've summed up the case pretty well there I think.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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"</font>[/QUOTE] I agree with what you have said hear. Faith does come by the Word of God or the "Word of Truth." Which is the gospel of salvation.

Eph. 1:13 In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation--in Him when you believed--were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

Notice that the "word of truth" is the gospel message. And also notice that they believed before they were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes after one has faith.

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.

I don't know how you believe this as a Calvinist? Don't you believe that number of people being saved today is the number of people that God elected to be saved today? How would the manner in which the preacher's preach today change that?

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.

I see this a little differently, though I agree with the concept. I believe the Holy Spirit's work is in the preaching and the bringing of the Word. The Holy Spirit indwells the heart of a believer and inspires him to speaks the Word of Truth, therefore that Word is powerful and effective, piercing hearts and leading to conviction. I believe the power is in the spoken words, if the words have been given by God through His Spirit.

Some resist the Words of man who speak by the Holy Spirit's power, thus they are resisting the Holy Spirit himself. (Acts 7:51)

So, I agree that there are 2 agents at work:

1. The Word
2. The Spirit

But, I don't separate the two in the manner you have. I believe the Word is brought through chosen men by the Spirit, thus there is power in the Word. The gospel is the power of God unto Salvation. Why? Because the gospel was given to man by the Spirit. There is its power.

You seem to think that the gospel itself is not powerful enough to lead one to salvation, but that the Holy Spirit has to do yet another internal work before the powerful Spirit sent message can have effect. I don't see that concept supported in the text.

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 agree and He does that through the gospel message not through some independant additional internal working to a select few as you seem to suggest.

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

I agree. The Holy Spirit's power is in the words of the gospel itself, because the gospel is from the Spirit. That's why people are saved where it is preached.

How does one recieve the Holy Spirit?

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

I didn't say that, the Bible does:

Gal. 3:14
The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Acts 19
1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior regions and came to Ephesus. He found some disciples 2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" "No," they told him, "we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3 "Then with what baptism were you baptized?" he asked them. "With John's baptism," they replied. 4 Paul said, "John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in the One who would come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them

John 7
31 However, many from the crowd believed in Him and said, "When the Messiah comes, He won't perform more signs than this man has done, will He?" 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about Him, so the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple police to arrest Him. 33 Therefore Jesus said, "I am only with you for a short time. Then I'm going to the One who sent Me. 34 You will look for Me, and you will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come." 35 Then the Jews said to one another, "Where does He intend to go so we won't find Him? He doesn't intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, does He? 36 What is this remark He made: 'You will look for Me, and you will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come'?" 37 On the last and most important day of the festival, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone is thirsty, he should come to Me and drink! 38 The one who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, will have streams of living water flow from deep within him." 39 He said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been received, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

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

Of course our faith is increased and strengthened once the Spirit indwells us. But as you can clearly see from the verses above, the Spirit only indwells those who have some measure of faith.

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

This verse is just talking about a system of belief. It's saying: would the Spirit within you teach you a new Faith or system of belief different from what the Spirit has taught us through the apostles.

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

I agree. How would we believe in that which we have not heard? And how would we hear without a preacher? And how will they preach unless they are sent?

Who sent them? God, by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He is the source alright!

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

Yes, the gospel, which was brought to both Jews and Gentiles by the Holy Spirit, give rebirth to all who believe. It's that simple.

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

Being hardened does not necessarily mean a man can't be saved.

Rom. 11: 13b: I magnify my ministry, if I can somehow make my own people jealous and save some of them.

Hardening was a temporary condition of the Jews for the purpose of ingrafting the Gentiles which would provoke the hardened Jews to jealous so that they too may be saved. You misapply the intent of this passage.

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

Preaching the Word of God is the work of the Holy Spirit! Don't separate them like this, the scripture doesn't.

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.

I disagree with your post, but it was quite clear and well stated. I appreciate your demeanor in your response in that you don't talk down to me as if you have all knowledge and I am just a poor dumb Arminian who doesn't know the Bible. I get sick of that kind of attitude really quickly.

Thanks for not being like that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob,
I think you have outdone yourself. Even by your standards, this doesn’t make much sense to me. I really have no clue what you talking about in most of it.

Obviously we both know that the CONTRAST of the scenarios was to provide a framework for SHOWING what Calvinism "EXPECTS of God" vs what Arminian "EXPECTS" in this "razor sharp CONTRAST scenario".

The foolishness of your trying to say what each expects is evident. Why would you do that? Why not just accept what Scripture says rather than pull out this unbiblical illustration which doesn’t help you?

As I say, your conception of God is no better because you have a God who could have saved that little girl but chose not to. Instead, he blames this weak and helpless little child for something that he could have changed. That is a fact in your “Expectation.” You have arranged the expectations in such as way that the true nature of your side is not shown, and that is a problem

Rev 3 shows Christ STANDING at the door and KNOCKING WITHOUT qualification as to WHOSE door it is.

So what? That is not the point. Assuming that is salvation (which is not entirely concrete), it doesn’t say whose door it is. Which makes your assumption that he is knocking on everyone’s door a fallacious assumption. But you missed that little bit of thought by only presenting one side, as you did above.

We both know that Calvinism expects EXACTLY what the scenario for Calvinism shows.

Neither of us “know” that. I know it is not true. I know you have made it up. Your “Knowledge” is the product of your mind rather than of Scripture.

Pretending that the topic has not been posted does not support your argument.

So where is this evidence that God draws all men without exception?

Your position requires you to CHARGE GOD with being "uncaring" with His OWN two children - Adam and Eve. This has already been shown to be unsupportable. You simply ignore that and go on.

I Must again ask if you are coherent? YOU are the one who brought up the protection and I merely pointed out that your “protection” did not work. It seems like you are responding without reading or thinking what you are saying.

On the contrary - I am in harmony with God's Word on this point and you are in the unneasy position of having to claim "The WHOLE WORLD will be SAVED" based on your redefitions on John 12:32.[/quot]I didn’t redefine anything. I said what the passage said. JOHn 6:44 says that all who are drawn will be saved. Those are the words of Christ, not me.

I adjusted the illustration to accurately reflect the Word of God.

No You didn’t. YOU Don’t even understand God’s word on this point, as evidenced by your unbiblical illustration. It has absolutely no basis in Scripture. It is the product of your mind.

Yes, I SAID that God ENABLES and CALLS so that ALL are ENABLED to accept - they merely CHOOSE to do so.

You attempted to say that MY claim was the SAME as a parent CALLING an infant to a dinner that the infant STILL CAN NOT accept. Basically you took your OWN assumptions and placed them into your OWN illustration claiming that your illustration FIT what I was claiming.

Either you just weren't following the point OR you meant to say that your illustration was how YOU view God.

Again, Bob, you cannot be serious with this. You say that God enables and draws all. But Scripture says that all who are drawn come and will be raised up. So unless you are a universalist, you do not believe in the biblical teaching about efficaciousness of drawing. MY illustration was meant to demonstrate the fallacy of yours. UNSaved man is like an infant who cannot get up and come. He is different in that he doesn’t want to. But that wasn’t the point of my illustration. MY illustration point out the fallacy of your understanding.

I included the DRAWING of God - even YOU do not deny that that DRAWING ENABLES the sinner to come.

But you did not include the clear biblical teaching that drawing ensures coming and that is why your position is unbiblical.

Why keep circling back as IF you don't believe that?? How does that make your case?

Luke 8 SHOWED the DEAD-in-sin LIFELESS ground springing for LIFE and then that life DYING.

Impossible to rewrite at this point.

The brevity of your non-response is indicative of the difficulty Luke 8 presents for Calvinism.

Your point doesn’t even make sense. Why should I refute something when there is nothing to refute? What am I suppsed to say? When you show the relevance of a passage, then I or someone else will refute it. As it is, you are searching hard to find help for your unbiblical position.

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"???

Bob, this was your argument and I pointed out the fallacy of it. Don’t pin it back on me because of your failure to understand the conversation.

Until your submit your mind and doctrine to Scripture, you will continue to have trouble understanding these very simple issues. You are determined to construct a God the Bible knows nothing about. I hope that you will abandon such a foolish approach.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously we both know that the CONTRAST of the scenarios was to provide a framework for SHOWING what Calvinism "EXPECTS of God" vs what Arminian "EXPECTS" in this "razor sharp CONTRAST scenario".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry --
Why would you do that?

Because it has proved to be a devastating comparison for which the Calvinist members have yet to form a coherent response. Even your own posts on this subject - simply serve to MAKE the case I claimed Calvinism was proposing - further digging the hole deaper for the Calvinist problem.

In fact - a quote from you is now part of that illustration.

Pastor Larry --
As I say, your conception of God is no better because you have a God who could have saved that little girl but chose not to. Instead, he blames this weak and helpless little child for something that he could have changed.

Since you are attempting to explain the Arminian scenario - why not pay attention to the details it supplied?.

Here they are again - for focus.
==============================

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" that God would "ALLOW selfless concern for our lost children EVEN for a moment once we are in heaven" (as some have said)... or that "God would LOVE our lost children" (As others have said) -- But I know that "not many" will do so - even among Calvinists because the comparison is obvious - blatant and clear.

Notice that INSTEAD of the Calvinist god that says "I did not even CARE for her". The Arminian God says "I CARED FOR BOTH" and "I DIED FOR BOTH" and "I DREW BOTH" and "I CAME BACK AGAIN for BOTH after being turned away by BOTH".

But as "predicted" in the scenario above - the Calvinist response will sometimes be "How Awfull!".

And see Pastor Larry?

Pastor Larry --
As I say, your conception of God is no better because you have a God who could have saved that little girl but chose not to. Instead, he blames this weak and helpless little child for something that he could have changed.

Only deep devotion to Calvinism would lead to that view of "loving Both".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev 3 shows Christ STANDING at the door and KNOCKING WITHOUT qualification as to WHOSE door it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
So what? That is not the point. Assuming that is salvation (which is not entirely concrete), it doesn’t say whose door it is.

As stated above "it is UNqualified" INSTEAD of highly qualified "I Stand at the door of ONLY those FEW in Matt 7 that I arbitrarily select".

Calvinism "needs" the qualified form.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We both know that Calvinism expects EXACTLY what the scenario for Calvinism shows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry
Neither of us “know” that. I know it is not true. I know you have made it up.

Do you also know that you are not actually responding to the point by SHOWING what part of the Calvinist response you differ with. (You know, the Calvinist response IN the scenario that actually INCLUDES your OWN quote? ) This could not BE any easier if you really have a point to make about the Calvinist response.

Pastor Larry
So where is this evidence that God draws all men without exception?

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your position requires you to CHArGE GOD with being "uncaring" with His OWN two children - Adam and Eve. This has already been shown to be unsupportable. You simply ignore that and go on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry --
I merely pointed out that your “protection” did not work.

I said God IS protecting His people- you charged that God is NOT since God allowed sinless ADAM to CHOOSE.

Back on track.

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary - I am in harmony with God's Word on this point.

You are in the unneasy position of having to claim "The WHOLE WORLD will be SAVED" based on your redefitions on John 12:32.

Pastor Larry

I didn’t redefine anything.

Good then Christ is drawing "ALL" - the unqualified ALL as in "ALL have SINNED" unqualified - ALL mankind.

God so loved the WORLD.

Christ died for our sins and not OUR sins only but for those of the WHOLE WORLD.

No redefintion needed.

And so back to the point again - ARE you saying the "WHOLE WORLD" is saved?

Basically in your response - you did not actually answer any of the questions posed for Calvinism. Is that because you don't have an answer for them or are you waiting for a better time to respond?

You seem to rely heavily on "forgetting" the context of the questions and restating them in a way that requires that we post the questions "again".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Because it has proved to be a devastating comparison for which the Calvinist members have yet to form a coherent response. Even your own posts on this subject - simply serve to MAKE the case I claimed Calvinism was proposing - further digging the hole deaper for the Calvinist problem.

Consider the following conversation.

Witness in court: Bob Ryan is a murderer. I saw him pull a gun out of his pocket and stick it in the temple of the mother and pull the trigger while her children stood wideeyed and terrified beside her. Then I say him take the same gun and shoot the children.

You would respond by saying, You are lying. You don't know what you are talking about.

And that is my response to your scenario. It is not devastating. It is not even true, as evidenced by the fact that you do not have one Scripture included in it. You made up an emotional story to pull emotions, not to sway the intellect by legitimate means. Your story is like mine, completely made up.

In the scenario you put, God has the power to effectively woo and win the heart of that little girl, but he refused. He allowed her to go to hell when he knew better. Consider a parent who sees a two year old playing in the street and stands on teh porch and cries and begs and pleads for that child to come back. You would consider that a bad parent. And you would tell that parent to go out and get that child and pick it up and bring it back. That is in fact what God did. He saw his children in danger and rather than callously calling from the porch as your God does, he went out and picked them up and brought them back.

Your arminian view of the future is based on your wish for how things should be, rather than on the truth that God reveals to us.

And see Pastor Larry?

Nope ... because there is no theology in it.

[qb]Only deep devotion to Calvinism would lead to that view of "loving Both".[QB]

I have no deep devotion to Calvinism. My deep devotion is to the Word of God and that is where we learn about these things.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
As stated above "it is UNqualified" INSTEAD of highly qualified "I Stand at the door of ONLY those FEW in Matt 7 that I arbitrarily select".

Calvinism "needs" the qualified form.

No it doesn't. You are the one who qualifies it and reads into it. I don't.

Do you also know that you are not actually responding to the point by SHOWING what part of the Calvinist response you differ with. (You know, the Calvinist response IN the scenario that actually INCLUDES your OWN quote? ) This could not BE any easier if you really have a point to make about the Calvinist response.

The point that you are missing Bob is that you made something up and called it the Calvinist response. You are wrong. That is all that can be said. You have made it up. What else can I say?? Take great pains to refute somethign that is false?? Why ?? You make stuff up and then expect us to treat it like Scripture. I refuse.

I said God IS protecting His people- you charged that God is NOT since God allowed sinless ADAM to CHOOSE.

And my response was, What kind of protection allows people to die? You are the one who misunderstood here. The kind of protection you believe in is no protection at all.

]Good then Christ is drawing "ALL" - the unqualified ALL as in "ALL have SINNED" unqualified - ALL mankind.

That is not what the text says Bob. The text is in the story of Jews and Greeks, where Jews have had access to Christ and now the Greeks are asking for it. Christ is essentially saying, "Not yet, but soon." It is a reference to all people without distinction, not all people without exception.

God so loved the WORLD.

I agree

Christ died for our sins and not OUR sins only but for those of the WHOLE WORLD.

You changed the text. The text said that Christ made propitiation not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. Propitiation is actual satisfaction, not potential satisfaction. This verse does not support you.

No redefintion needed.

I agree; you just have to define it right, which you did not do.

And so back to the point again - ARE you saying the "WHOLE WORLD" is saved?

Not as in universalism. That is what you position leads to from the verse you quote above as well as your erroneous notion of drawing. I reject that beacuse Scripture does.

Basically in your response - you did not actually answer any of the questions posed for Calvinism. Is that because you don't have an answer for them or are you waiting for a better time to respond?

What questions were posed for Calvinism that did not depend on your made up story that springs from your misunderstanding rather than from Scripture?

You seem to rely heavily on "forgetting" the context of the questions and restating them in a way that requires that we post the questions "again".

Typically, I boil the question down to the point rather than deal with all the blabber that accompanies them. Your illustration is way off base and has no basis in reality. Scripture never presents such a picture; Calvinism never paints such a picture. Whatever enemy you are arguing against, it is not biblical calvinism. It is something of your own creation. I urge you to deal in actual facts rather than making stuff up.

 

[BobRyan]

Pastor Larry

Consider the following conversation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness in court: Bob Ryan is a murderer. I saw him pull a gun out of his pocket and stick it in the temple of the mother and pull the trigger while her children stood wideeyed and terrified beside her. Then I say him take the same gun and shoot the children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would respond by saying, You are lying. You don't know what you are talking about.

And that is my response to your scenario. It is not devastating. It is not even true

Wrong again Pastor Larry.

To make the EQUIVALENT case - as the DEVASTATING one I have made you "need the salient points" in a quote FROM ME - JUST as I have FROM YOU.

Your salient points above revovle around "a gun" and cold-blooded-murder and women and children. IF you got me to "ENDORSE" that PRACTICE in principle then (and only then)your "ILLUSTRATION" would be truly "DEVASTATING" because you could SHOW my quotes IN your illustration. (As I have done with YOUR quotes).

Get it Larry?

You really CAN come up with "some case" to use in your favor BUT you must MATCH the KEY SALIENT points in the illusration with those SAME KEY points that I MAKE in my arguments. in that way you would be objectively SHOWING my error using a devastatingly effective illustration that relied on MY OWN quotes.

And of course - I (like the Calvinists here) would complain profusely about the posting of that illustration WITHOUT actually ADDRESSING the KEY salient points OF your illustration OR ADDRESSING MY OWN QUOTE that you include in it.

Now lets just sit back and consider that for a moment Pastor Larry. Imagine that you really had such an illustration. You have to admit - you would SAVE it off and post it when the topic came up to see if I had finally had time to respond to the actual details of the argument.

And each time I failed to address them - you would see "a little more victory" in demonstrating that your position is the right one - in an objective way that EVEN an Arminian could not refute. Trust me - you would enjoy it.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But then in a serious moment Pastor Larry posts --

Pastor Larry
In the scenario you put, God has the power to effectively woo and win the heart of that little girl

Indeed He does AND He has the POWER to break the will of all mankind and FORCE them to do as He pleases.

BUT INSTEAD - God uses the combination of LOVE AND POWER - MERCY and JUSTICE to draw BOTH the parent AND the child.

And when BOTH the parent and the child refuse HIM - HE DRAWS THEM AGAIN - with wave after wave of mercy. But in the end - He refuses to whack them in the head like a puppet on a string. Having ENABLED BOTH of them to ACCEPT - and having DRAWN BOTH of them He lovingly accepts their CHOICE that He SOVEREIGNLY gives them.

Pastor Larry
, but he refused. He allowed her to go to hell when he knew better.

This is the "God is to blame for Adams fall" because God "ALLOWED Adam to fall though God KNEW better". By injecting the Calvinist principle that ALL outcomes are "Because God knew better" into the Arminian scenario - you fail to refute the Arminian argument.

Notice that in the CALVINIST scenario I provide the devastating case against Calvinism by KEEPING to Calvinist principles.

In Calvinism IF God is "Powerful ENOUGH" to FORCE you then He does. CALVINISM views the Arminian scenario as a failure by injecting Calvinisms rule - "The STRONG FORCE THEIR WAY at all costs to the weak" into the scenario.

Pastor Larry

Consider a parent who sees a two year old playing in the street and stands on teh porch and cries and begs and pleads for that child to come back. You would consider that a bad parent. And you would tell that parent to go out and get that child and pick it up and bring it back.

But if that Parent FORCE the will by LOCKING the child in the house UNTIL that child was an adult we would charge the parent with "cruelty". SIMPLY arguing that "AS LONG AS I AM POWERFUL I will FORCE MY WAY" does not accomplish the "greater good". God was ALWAYS powerful "ENOUGH" to lock the child in the house ALL of its life until it was an adult. But God refused to do so. While He is not sending it out into the street, but in fact WALKING WITH THE CHILD and HOlDING the child's hand - AT SOME point EVEN a parent can not hang on to the hand for 21 years without being "cruel".

Pastor Larry
Your arminian view of the future is based on your wish for how things should be, rather than on the truth that God reveals to us.

This is another Calvinist fallacy. Calvinists often wish the scripture ONLY provided support for their doctrines and often pretend that the case for Arminians is ONLY made from "Wishes" AT THE SAME TIME the Calvinists must "water down" GOD SO LOVED the WORLD. And "NOT WILLING FOR ANY TO PERISH". AND "THEY REJECTED God's PURPOSE FOR THEM". and "God Sent His Son to BE the Savior of the WORLD". (and on and on it goes).

But IF it really were the SIMPLE case of "NOTHING but wishes for Arminians" and "NOTHING in God's Word but Calvinist support" then your summary above would be believable.

But as it is now .... who is kidding who?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
1) Notice that in the CALVINIST scenario I provide the devastating case against Calvinism by KEEPING to Calvinist principles.


2)But IF it really were the SIMPLE case of "NOTHING but wishes for Arminians" and "NOTHING in God's Word but Calvinist support" then your summary above would be believable.

1)No wonder you always come across as being stuck on yourself. You probably think that the whole world of Calvinist Christians are sounding the retreat at the words of Bob Ryan - the Seventh-Day Adventist answer to the Reformed Church of John Calvin - only in your mind, Bob.

2)If you are honest, Bob, you will admit that there are difficult verses to deal with for those who teach salvation by free will, just as I admit that there are difficult verses to deal with for those of us who teach salvation by free grace.

 

[KenH]

***Double Post***

 

[BobRyan]

Pastor Larry
Your arminian view of the future is based on your wish for how things should be, rather than on the truth that God reveals to us.

A statement requiring very clear and consistent "lack" of Arminian text support in scripture. Which "obviously" is a problem.

To which we get Ken's response that it is only because I am "Bob" that I notice that "problem".

Ken - your response was compelling and thorough in exploring the details of the problem.

Thanks.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob,

This discussion will go no farther because I won't accept your flawed premise. YOu have made up your illustration based on your mind and desire, not on Scripture. You have not used "calvinist" principles in it. UNtil you realize that and properly represent what your opponent really believes, you will continue to bark up the wrong tree.

You are wrong in your characterization of Scripture and what we believe. When you decide to give up this charade, perhaps there will be an opportunity for us to talk again. Until then, I have better things to do.

 

[BobRyan]

To make the EQUIVALENT case - as the DEVASTATING one I have made you "need the salient points" in a quote FROM ME - JUST as I have FROM YOU.

coming up with a razor sharp illustration that RELIES on the salient points of the OPPOSITION to make its case AND to show the contrast in living color (as the FUTURE scenarios did) "looks easy" - but as you see in the point made above - it is harder than it looks.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
it is harder than it looks

It sure is, Bob. So why don't you quit trying? It hard watching a friend continue to fail time and again.

 

[rufus]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were very much in line with the Arminian view of the "good news" of the Gospel that He taught.

Bob, perhaps you have become guilty of selective citing of Scripture to attempt a "proof."

And perhaps you have made a logical error of judging Jesus to be an Arminian on the basis of a hasty generalization from so little "evidence" which does not support your induction.

God Bless, good brother.

rufus

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 18 Christ teaches "Forgiveness REVOKED" showing FREE WILL AFTER accepting Salvation can lead to the loss of forgiveness.

In Luke 8:4-14 Christ shows those who are DEAD lifeless - SPRING to life and then describes that life as being CHOKED OUT - again showing CHOICE after accepting salvation.

In John 12:32 Christ shows that He is DRAWING ALL MANKIND unto Himself - not just "The arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7".

In Matt 11 Christ shows that His invitation is to ALL - "COME unto Me ALL who are weary and burdened down".

In John 6 Christ says that His FLESH given was GIVEN on behalf of the "WORLD".

In John 3:16 Christ argues that "GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD".

This review of the Arminian statements of Christ -- can go on and on and on ..

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This review of the Arminian statements of Christ -- can go on and on and on ..

And as you well know, the Calvinist statements of Christ -- can go on and on and on...

But Jesus Christ is neither Arminian nor Calvinist nor other man concocted name - HE IS GOD.

 

[BobRyan]

Rufus,

You asked for the "proof" and I showed the texts that show IN Christ teaching - HIS OWN views that so directly refute Calvinism.

And then --- no response Rufus?

I thought you were good for another round on that one. Lets explore those texts - eh?

In Christ,

Bob