Counsel Wanted for My Theological Conclusions

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Particularly section 19.

And then get the expanded version authored by Spurgeon -- read that section 19 very carefully. A good teaching can be found there on the Law and the Gospel.

he held very strongly to saved by grace alone, faith alone though!

In section 19 he argues (as do many Arminians) that God's Word, God's Law and God's Gospel are not at all in conflict

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus stated that NONE that he ever saved would get lost and unsaved, correct?

You realize of course - that you just "quoted you" just then.

I think you meant to quote from John 10. (Or possibly John 6... hard to tell with the paraphrase statement you are making)

 

[utilyan]

You realize of course - that you just "quoted you" just then.

I think you meant to quote from John 10. (Or possibly John 6... hard to tell with the paraphrase statement you are making)

I'm interested in Yeshua's "Jesus saved". Name one person Jesus has saved. Because Jesus himself says the saving happens on the last day. The opposite of loss >being saved > being raised up on the last day.

John 6
39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I'm interested in Yeshua's "Jesus saved". Name one person Jesus has saved. Because Jesus himself says the saving happens on the last day. The opposite of loss >being saved > being raised up on the last day.

John 6
39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Jesus says in John's Gospel, chapter 5:

"I assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life" (verse 24)

The Greek "μεταβέβηκεν" is used in the perfect indicative, which denotes that the "passing from death to life" has already taken place for believers, as their guarantee that they are saved from the moment they repent and accept Jesus into their lives. Similarly, Jesus again promises Martha, "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me, even if he dies, will live. Everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die—ever. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26), where the Greek shows that the person who believes in Jesus and is saved, "WILL LIVE", after the die humanly. (this is seen from the use of the double negative "οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ" (never ever die, under no circumstances), because they already "HAVE" as their eternal possession, "ETERNAL LIFE". "ἀποθάνῃ" is in the second aorist active, indicating that their salvation is a definite thing upon believing, and not at a later time as Martha had supposed, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” (verse 24). Eternal life for ALL true believers commences AT the time the believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

In section 19 he argues (as do many Arminians) that God's Word, God's Law and God's Gospel are not at all in conflict

We saved by Grace, not by Law, correct? We can do NOTHING to get saved, and need to do NOTHING to keep it, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

it also depends on how the Scriptures are used, or misused!

And having proper definition of how the bible uses terms.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

We saved by Grace, not by Law, correct? We can do NOTHING to get saved, and need to do NOTHING to keep it, correct?

What does Paul mean by "work out your salvation"? (Philippians 2:12). Read Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 where it says that we must remain faithful/believing to the end, to enter God's final rest, which is heaven...Doing nothing is not an option!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

And having proper definition of how the bible uses terms.

Indeed, like "κόσμος" in John 3:16 meaning "the world, the human race", and not in any "limited" sense!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Name one person Jesus has saved.

He saved Paul and Titus. Titus 3:4-6.

 

[Yeshua1]

What does Paul mean by "work out your salvation"? (Philippians 2:12). Read Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 where it says that we must remain faithful/believing to the end, to enter God's final rest, which is heaven...Doing nothing is not an option!

We do nothing in getting saved, or kept saved, as that would be totally the work of God in our lives, but we are to have good works that accompany salvation!

 

[The Biblicist]

"There are 20 God hating people in a house who have pillaged, raped, plundered and killed and then they have set the house on fire. God graciously will send prophets and ministers to call all of them to repentance but they would rather burn up with the house than repent. Hence, God determines to allow 15 to freely follow the dictates of their own depraved will thereby glorifying his justice but unwilling that all perish he determinately chooses to save 5 purely by grace and at the cost of His own son entering into the burning house and dying so they could be saved. In these five he graciously gives them a new heart that is inherently disposed to righteousness and thereby freely choose to repent and believe the gospel and he works in them both to will and to do of His glory purely by free grace thereby "to the praise and to the glory of his grace." And so his ministers not knowing who are the elect versus non elect preach the gospel to all calling upon all to repent and believe knowing that nothing but man's own depraved will prevents him from salvation and nothing but the pure free elective grace of God will secure their salvation. Hence, when the gospel is preached it is always victorious - Now thanks be to God, which always causes us to triumph in Christ, and makes manifest the aroma of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are to God a sweet smell of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the smell of death to death; and to the other the smell of life to life - as ALL the Father gives do in fact come in faith to Christ just as ALL he draws are raised up to life and those who do not believe were never given or drawn by God (Jn. 6:36, 64-65)

 

[BobRyan]

"There are 20 God hating people in a house who have pillaged, raped, plundered and killed and then they have set the house on fire. God graciously will send prophets and ministers to call all of them to repentance but they would rather burn up with the house than repent. Hence, God determines to allow 15 to freely follow the dictates of their own depraved will thereby glorifying his justice but unwilling that all perish he determinately chooses to save 5 purely by grace and at the cost of His own son entering into the burning house and dying so they could be saved. In these five he graciously gives them a new heart that is inherently disposed to righteousness and thereby freely choose to repent and believe the gospel and he works in them both to will and to do of His glory

And then after that "arbitrary selection of 5" he says "God is not partial" Romans 2:11 and claims "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3. And even worse instead of admitting "God so loved the FIVE that He gave..." God claims "God so loved the WORLD that HE gave"... and even worse instead of admitting "God paid for all the sins of the FIVE... just the FIVE"... God said He was the "atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2. Thus Calvinism's model so very FAR from depicting God who is true to His own Word.


Now to be fair to Calvinism's premise -- we all admit "God IS sovereign" and He COULD have chose to say that He "arbitrary selects the FEW" of Matthew 7, that He IS WILLING that the MANY of Matt 7 perish just not the FEW, and that He "So loved the FEW of Matt ion of 7" (the 5) that GAVE His Son... but He did not say any of that. So then Calvinism is stuck with a text that refutes their own story.

In that "future scenario" when the Calvinist parent looking over the ramparts of heaven - seeing their precious daughter screaming in the fires of hell -- runs to God and says "Oh Father couldn't you have done SOMETHING to save my precious daughter" -- the much anticipated Calvinist answer is given "why certainly My child I COULD have -- IF I had CARED to".

by contrast -- in real life - God says this "WHAT MORE could I have DONE that I have not already DONE?" Isaiah 5:4... And the Bible says "HE came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1:11

Ezek 33:11 "11 Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’"


You say "God graciously will send prophets and ministers to call all of them to repentance but they would rather burn up with the house than repent." -- but you tell the story like this "a man goes to the top of the Empire statement building -- and has compassion on all the loose dogs wandering around on the street so he holds out a dog biscuit over the edge of the building and shouts -- "here doggy doggy jump up and get your biscuit"... but then in the case of a FEW dogs -- the man goes down and actually hands them the biscuit.

By contrast the Bible actually says "I will DRAW ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 and it is the drawing of God in John 6 -- that even Calvinists will admit "ENABLES" all the choice that depravity disables.

 

[The Biblicist]

And then after that "arbitrary selection of 5" he says "God is not partial"

No partiality at all - as the 5 were not chosen because they were any better than the 15 nor were they chosen due to anything in them at all but they were chosen in spite of themselves. However, your view makes God a respector of persons because your view has God choosing some over others because he sees something in some or done by some that he does not in others - thus a respecter of persons.

"God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3.

This first "any" is a mistranslation of the Greek text as the Greek text does not have "pas" any term equivilent in meaning to "any" but has 'hamas" which means "us" translated "usward" in the KJV, and this epistle is addressed to "the elect" - 2 Pet. 1:10 - "your election"

And even worse instead of admitting "God so loved the FIVE that He gave..." God claims "God so loved the WORLD that HE gave"... and even worse instead of admitting "God paid for all the sins of the FIVE... just the FIVE"... God said He was the "atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2. Thus Calvinism's model so very FAR from depicting God who is true to His own Word.

The term "world" is used by Jewish writers and simply means "jews and gentiles" as the Jews did not believe Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews (Acts 15) and the early church refused to witness to the Jews for the first 9 chapters of Acts, and Peter had to be given a vision three times in order for him to go to Gentiles and then told Corneilus it was "not lawful" for him to even enter a Gentile house. The first real evangelism to Jews was in Acts 11 but God had to call an apostle to the Gentiles in order for the gospel to reach Gentiles. In John 3:16 Jesus is speaking to a leader of the Jews who believed salvation was restricted to being Jewish. The same writer of the gospel of John is writing Jewish believers in 1 John who had already received an "old commandment" and had to reinforce that redemption was not merely Jewish but for the "whole world" = meaning all ethnicities, all classes,all genders. The terms "world" and "all" by Jewish writers means "all without distinction" not all without exception as much of the human race was already in hell when they used these terms under the wrath, not the love of God.

Now to be fair to Calvinism's premise -- we all admit "God IS sovereign" and He COULD have chose to say that He "arbitrary selects the FEW" of Matthew 7, that He IS WILLING that the MANY of Matt 7 perish just not the FEW, and that He "So loved the FEW of Matt ion of 7" (the 5) that GAVE His Son... but He did not say any of that. So then Calvinism is stuck with a text that refutes their own story.

Another absurd line of reasoning. Matthew 5-7 is a sermon designed to distinguish between true and false kingdom professors - a difference in righteousness (5) a difference in heart motivation (6) and a difference ultimately in final judgement (7). The subject is not about election or what occurred prior to the foundation of the world or the redemptive purposes of God.

In that "future scenario" when the Calvinist parent looking over the ramparts of heaven - seeing their precious daughter screaming in the fires of hell -- runs to God and says "Oh Father couldn't you have done SOMETHING to save my precious daughter" -- the much anticipated Calvinist answer is given "why certainly My child I COULD have -- IF I had CARED to".

by contrast -- in real life - God says this "WHAT MORE could I have DONE that I have not already DONE?" Isaiah 5:4... And the Bible says "HE came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1:11

And he has done all He could do as they are his "elect" and they will ultimately be brought to salvation according to the purpose of election (Rom. 11:25-32) and the "remnant" in every generation are saved according to election (Rom. 11:1-7).

Ezek 33:11 "11 Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’"

Another classic abuse of scripture and of our position. Judgement is due to justice not due to God simply relishing to punish the non-elect or bringing the temporal judgement of death upon anyone.

You say "God graciously will send prophets and ministers to call all of them to repentance but they would rather burn up with the house than repent." -- but you tell the story like this "a man goes to the top of the Empire statement building -- and has compassion on all the loose dogs wandering around on the street so he holds out a dog biscuit over the edge of the building and shouts -- "here doggy doggy jump up and get your biscuit"... but then in the case of a FEW dogs -- the man goes down and actually hands them the biscuit.

What a poor analogy and misconstrued view of our position! All are justly condemned already (Jn. 3:18) and all are a god hating people (Rom. 8:7-8) who would rather burn than turn (Rom. 3:10-18) and all are responsible for setting their own house on fire (Rom. 1:18-32; 3:23). Nothing prevents their salvation but their own depraved refusal to come to Christ and if that were not the case Jesus would not have said "no man CAN come to me." Therefore, God can justly allow all to continue in their own free choice and that he saves any is what should be utterly amazing as his grace is free grace without constraint as he can have mercy upon whom he will have mercy and he can harden whom he wills without any injustice to any.

By contrast the Bible actually says "I will DRAW ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 and it is the drawing of God in John 6 -- that even Calvinists will admit "ENABLES" all the choice that depravity disables.

Another complete perversion of a text that is jerked out of context. You take one text in John 12 to invalidate nearly a complete chapter in chapter six that totally repudiates your inference of this text. Not all are drawn just as not all are given to the son (Jn. 6:37-39; 45,64-65) and in this context it is the "Greeks" that are seeking permission from his JEWISH disciples to see him when the law of the Jews denied them to even come into a Gentiles home much less fellowship with them (Acts 10:29). Jesus is repudiating the Jewish restriction that one must be Jewish in order to be saved but rather "all men" without distinction of race, class or gender will be drawn to him. In John 6:45 he quotes from Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 thus restricting the "all" in John 6:45a to the "least unto the greatest" within the NEW COVENANT (Heb. 8:8-10).

 

[BobRyan]

The Biblicist said: ↑
"There are 20 God hating people in a house who have pillaged, raped, plundered and killed and then they have set the house on fire. God graciously will send prophets and ministers to call all of them to repentance but they would rather burn up with the house than repent. Hence, God determines to allow 15 to freely follow the dictates of their own depraved will thereby glorifying his justice but unwilling that all perish he determinately chooses to save 5 purely by grace and at the cost of His own son entering into the burning house and dying so they could be saved. In these five he graciously gives them a new heart that is inherently disposed to righteousness and thereby freely choose to repent and believe the gospel and he works in them both to will and to do of His glory

And then after that "arbitrary selection of 5" he says "God is not partial" Romans 2:11 and claims "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3.

No partiality at all - as the 5 were not chosen because they were any better than the 15 nor were they chosen due to anything in them at all

Which is the definition for arbitrary and partial. He makes the arbitrary selection then demonstrates partiality towards those that are arbitrarily selected... arbitrarily selecting out the "FEW" of Matt 7.

However, your view makes God a respector of persons because your view has God choosing some over others because he sees something in some or done by some that he does not in others - thus a respecter of persons.

Again that is a nonsensical definition for "partial". To say that because some students studied they were given A and some did not so they were given F is the definition of "showing partiality" is utter nonsense. It is in fact the opposite.

The fact that God can do that with the future as well as the past is not "a flaw in the Arminian statement".

Rather it demonstrates the "strange logic" that must be employed to defend Calvinism "against the text" of scripture.

I am indebted to your willingness to admit it -- via that post.

 

[utilyan]

If God commands all to sit down would that indicate God has a desire for all to avoid the consequence of standing up?

 

[BobRyan]

If God commands all to repent - and God says He is not willing for any to perish (2 Peter 3) and God says "as I live - I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" -- does this indicate that God desires something very specific?

 

[The Biblicist]

And then after that "arbitrary selection of 5" he says "God is not partial"

"Partial" demands that his choice would be based on something IN them or something done BY them that either obligates him to respond to them or at minimum appeals to him more than those who do not have that same something done IN them or done BY them.

You illustrate it well with the student analogy. It is the student that did something ("studied") that EARNED your kind of election. Every school teacher and student realizes your analogy is the essence of what it means to EARN an "A" but election is "of grace" (Rom. 11:5) and EARNING has no part of grace as what the student did in your analogy obligates the teacher to give an "A" but grace cannot be earned and it can't be an obligation or it ceases to be grace.


I am saying that election is not based upon anything found IN or BY the 5 that either earns, appeals or obligates God to choose the 5 over the 15. Instead, election has its cause only in God alone or as Paul says "According to the good pleasure of HIS OWN WILL" and "according to the praise of his grace."

Therefore the cause of election does not have any root in the 5 any more than in the 15 but rather election is the cause for obtaining the essential conclusion of salvation in them (Eph. 1:4b "
that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"). He does not say "because they ARE holy..." or "because they were seen as holy" but "that they should be." Hence election is the cause that obtains holiness in and through them so that they will stand without blame before him on judgement day.

Your own illlustration has the five as students EARN an "A" by what they did ("studied") and thus obligates the teacher to give them an A. However, the Bible says election is "of grace" - Rom. 11:5 and if you don't understand what Grace is and what Grace excludes and what Grace obtain then just read Romans 11:6-7.

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for; but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

What did Israel seek for? They sought for salvation BY WORKS and they did not obtain it. What obtains salvation? "election has obtained it" but not "by works" but "by grace."

 

[The Biblicist]

If God commands all to repent - and God says He is not willing for any to perish (2 Peter 3) and God says "as I live - I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked"

God also commands all men to "be perfect EVEN AS God IS perfect" but that does not mean they have ability to obtain that goal but they are certainly accountable by God to be so. God is not responsible for their inability - they are. Again, you are misinterpreting 2 Peter 3 as it is referring to "usward" or the elect. Again, there is no pleasure in administration of justice but nevertheless justice glorifies God.

-- does this indicate that God desires something very specific?

Anyone can take various texts and patch them together to support anything they desire and so have you here.

 

[utilyan]

If God commands all to repent - and God says He is not willing for any to perish (2 Peter 3) and God says "as I live - I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" -- does this indicate that God desires something very specific?

It would have been a lot easier if you asked my question. Thief

 

[utilyan]

God also commands all men to "be perfect EVEN AS God IS perfect" but that does not mean they have ability to obtain that goal but they are certainly accountable by God to be so. God is not responsible for their inability - they are. Again, you are misinterpreting 2 Peter 3 as it is referring to "usward" or the elect. Again, there is no pleasure in administration of justice but nevertheless justice glorifies God.



Anyone can take various texts and patch them together to support anything they desire and so have you here.

"God also commands all men to "be perfect EVEN AS God IS perfect"

So God sincerely desires all men to be perfect. God desires all mankind to be saved.