Does this represent your side?

[Charlie T]

Bob,
You are interesting to read as your rhetoric is quite rich, but unfortunately your arguments do not get very far.

Indeed it is - but Calvinism must make it's entire case in that little bit of realestate where Fred cashes in on what someone else provided.

Actually the entire case rests on a Sovereign God. You insist on a partnership for salvation; the Bible teaches that God does it all. I reject grace dependent on man's choice. God claims to perform His grace.

Now all that is left for Calvinism to make its case on -- is "redefining" "ALL mankind" and "World" from the SAME texts used by BOTH sides to explain Fred's "ability".

I suggest that your understanding of the word 'all' ('pas" in Greek) is lacking. Read Acts 21:28 & 22:15 and tell me if Paul was a witness to every single man in the Roman empire or to every class of man in the Roman empire. Even in english, all often does not refer to each and every. It depends on the context.

I do agree that sometimes "all" does mean each and every one. For example "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (Jn 6:37) And "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (Jn 6:45b) Some of the context can be seen in the negative statements such as "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (Jn 6:65.)

Regarding the analogy, Fred and Bob are equal beings. I think that this suggests much about the Arminian position. Gen. 3:5 is the temptation that mankind faces again and again and in our efforts to be like God, man comes up with all kinds of doctrine.

So what is left to Calvinism as "substance" in it's last stand case arguing against "World " and "All mankind"?

It is that God would be "inneffectual" if He draws All Mankind for the purpose of salvation but then All Mankind does not become saints.

hmmm as in - "inneffectual" if God creates the Angles for the divine purpose of being ministers of light - when in fact 1/3 of them one day - turn to rebellion.

You make assumptions that this is not part of God's Sovereign plan. Neither you nor I know what God's plans are. Your comparision is really quite empty.

Jesus said that all the the Father calls, believes. Jesus said unless the Father grant that one comes, he will not come. You say that man must be a part of his salvation. One of the three statements does not match the other two.

As if God would be "inneffectual" if He creates mankind to "Worship God and Glorify God" only to have 100% of mankind turn to sin and total depravity in the Garden of Eden.

See, again you forget that sometimes the Potter forms a vessel for a common use , that is for destruction (Rom 9:21-22). Paul was quite comfortable about the issue. I do not think that God was surprised about the Fall. But you are then assuming that this was not part of his eternal decree before time.

Charlie

 

[BobRyan]

Charlied TYou are interesting to read as your rhetoric is quite rich, but unfortunately your arguments do not get very far.

This is the kind of opening summary statement that each side offers to the other in this discussion. Nothing new there - simply "ditto".

The "proof" is in the effective response to the devastating points placed on the table showing the weakness for the case of Calvinism.

Bob said
Indeed it is - but Calvinism must make it's entire case in that little bit of realestate where Fred cashes in on what someone else provided.

In fact - "look" at the Calvinist responses to Jacobs illustration - they did EXACTLY that. Their case was made only in "how much work" Fred was doing in Cashing the check and the fact that in the absence of John 12:32 applying to "all mankind" Fred would not want to cash the check.

Just as I maintained they would do - it is in the record for all to read.

Charlie T said
Actually the entire case rests on a Sovereign God. You insist on a partnership for salvation; the Bible teaches that God does it all.

The Bible says "Behold I stand at the door and knock --- IF anyone HEARS my Voice (while I stand OUTSIDE the door of the heart and knock) and OPENS the Door - THEN (in RESPONSE) I WILL come in" Rev 3:20

The "Action-Response, Action-Response" sequence is impossible to miss.

As for God's being sovereign - the entire model for the Arminian view is based on God's FIRST being sovereign and Choosing this system.

God Sovereignly chooses to STAND OUTSIDE the door and knock. God sovereignly chooses to ENABLE by "Drawing ALL MANKIND" to Himself (even Calvinism admits this).

God sovereignly chose to Give Luciver free will and Lucifer falls along with 1/3 of the angels.

God sovereignly chose to Give Adma and Eve free will and 100% of mankind becomes totally depraved.

God sovereignly chooses to "Draw ALL mankind", to "Convict the World of Sin and Righteousness and Judgment" - God sovereignly chooses to "So Love the World" - and Chooses to say "He is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance".

God sovereignly chooses to call Christ "The savior of the World" 1John 4.

God sovereignly chose this system but some among use will choose to reject that system.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 19, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Bob saidNow all that is left for Calvinism to make its case on -- is "redefining" "ALL mankind" and "World" from the SAME texts used by BOTH sides to explain Fred's "ability".[/quote

Charlie T said
I suggest that your understanding of the word 'all' ('pas" in Greek) is lacking.

Indeed - the arguments for "when all does not really mean ALL".

Yet Romans 5 clearly shows that the same "ALL" that fall into sin due to Adam's failure - are the "ALL" that benefit from Christ's "one Act".

Lock box and iron clad.

But your point stands - you are arguing against "All being All" as I stated in my point above. And certainly you will be able to find some cases where that holds up.

As noted - this is the circle to which Calvinism is reduced.
.

Charlie T
I do agree that sometimes "all" does mean each and every one. For example "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (Jn 6:37) And "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (Jn 6:45b) Some of the context can be seen in the negative statements such as "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (Jn 6:65.)

And so - "Drawing ALL mankind" John 12:32 in that context of "ALL drawn" in John 6 - is particularly devastating to Calvinism's case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Charlie T Regarding the analogy, Fred and Bob are equal beings. I think that this suggests much about the Arminian position. Gen. 3:5 is the temptation that mankind faces again and again and in our efforts to be like God, man comes up with all kinds of doctrine.

That "sounds" good if you are already Calvinist since it appears to support the Calvinist position. But in fact both Calvinist and Arminian readers can see that you yourself don't accept the argument you are making.

In Matt 18 it is a king and his servant - both humans "equal beings".

Just as in the case above one is said to have very little means and another is said to have more than enough means. Christ frequently drew that SAME analogy between a land owner and workers, a king and subjects, etc. Your argument (if you really took it seriously) would have condemned Christ's own use of human-to-human analogies. Obviously you do not take your point above to be "true".

And obviously Arminians do not place man equal to God any more than Christ was in Matt 18's parable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
So what is left to Calvinism as "substance" in it's last stand case arguing against "World " and "All mankind"?

It is that God would be "inneffectual" if He draws All Mankind for the purpose of salvation but then All Mankind does not become saints.

hmmm as in - "inneffectual" if God creates the Angles for the divine purpose of being ministers of light - when in fact 1/3 of them one day - turn to rebellion.

Charlie T
You make assumptions that this is not part of God's Sovereign plan. Neither you nor I know what God's plans are. Your comparision is really quite empty.

I admit it does not fit into what Calvinism "needs" - but it is solidly based on scripture.

Hebrews 1 points out that God's purpose for the Angels was that "ALL the angels should worship Him" and they were made as "Ministers of Light" Heb 1:6-7. Instead of warring against Christ - they were to worship and serve Him.

The idea that "we might not know that" is not consistent with scripture. Nor is it consistent to argue that God made them to be demons and oppose Him - and cause the fall of mankind. Rather they were "PERFECT until sin was found in them" they were "corrupted" by their own pride.

Charlie T said
Jesus said that all the the Father calls, believes. Jesus said unless the Father grant that one comes, he will not come.

And then Jesus said that He "Draws ALL MANKIND unto Him" John 12:32.

Case closed - and devastating to Calvinism's hopes.

Bob Said
As if God would be "inneffectual" if He creates mankind to "Worship God and Glorify God" only to have 100% of mankind turn to sin and total depravity in the Garden of Eden.

Charlie T
See, again you forget that sometimes the Potter forms a vessel for a common use , that is for destruction (Rom 9:21-22).

So you are arguing that the "purpose" for Adam and Eve was "Destruction"? That God created them perfectly sinnless wiht the intent of destroying them?

Such is not EVEN the case of the rebellious Pharisees. Man's purpose was/is to glorify God

Luke 7:30 "the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for them"

(And now you may want to "redefine purpose").

Romans 9 makes the case that God shows MERCY to vessels of desctruction IN ORDER that the saints might see the goodness of God EVEN in the case of those He knows will finally reject Him. This is the opposite argument of "God cares nothing for them - but dooms sinnless mankind to hell in the case of Adam and Eve".
----------------------------------

Charlie T
Paul was quite comfortable about the issue. I do not think that God was surprised about the Fall. But you are then assuming that this was not part of his eternal decree before time.

Indeed God did not "decree Adam's failure" - nor Lucifers failure. He did not "decree the vile actions of the wicked" simply befcause He foreknows them. Such an active role in decreeing wickedness would leave Him as the author and commanding of evil.

The Arminian argument is not that God "Does not know the future".

Neither was the Arminian argument EVER made in the form "God draws all mankind but mankind surprises God by not all showing up for sainthood".

The issue has never been "Whether God was surprised" - both sides can agree on absolute foreknowledge of sinners, of perfect Angels - and Even of Christ's actions.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Charlie T]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlied TYou are interesting to read as your rhetoric is quite rich, but unfortunately your arguments do not get very far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the kind of opening summary statement that each side offers to the other in this discussion. Nothing new there - simply "ditto".

The "proof" is in the effective response to the devastating points placed on the table showing the weakness for the case of Calvinism.

Actually, I am quite impressed with your rhetoric and bravado. I disagree with you theologically, but am impressed with your writing abilities.

 

[Charlie T]

And so - "Drawing ALL mankind" John 12:32 in that context of "ALL drawn" in John 6 - is particularly devastating to Calvinism's case

Is this context based on some kind of exegesis, or just because you want the definitions to be the same?

And, do you deny the different uses of the word "all" in the Greek New Testament?

 

[Charlie T]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Charlie T Regarding the analogy, Fred and Bob are equal beings. I think that this suggests much about the Arminian position. Gen. 3:5 is the temptation that mankind faces again and again and in our efforts to be like God, man comes up with all kinds of doctrine.

That "sounds" good if you are already Calvinist since it appears to support the Calvinist position. But in fact both Calvinist and Arminian readers can see that you yourself don't accept the argument you are making. </font>[/QUOTE][/b]Upon what do you base this allegation?

In Matt 18 it is a king and his servant - both humans "equal beings".

Just as in the case above one is said to have very little means and another is said to have more than enough means. Christ frequently drew that SAME analogy between a land owner and workers, a king and subjects, etc. Your argument (if you really took it seriously) would have condemned Christ's own use of human-to-human analogies. Obviously you do not take your point above to be "true".

Actually I suggested a very similar analogy in which one was in debtors prison, still rebelling against repaying the debt and the other a sovereign King, paying the debt. But that is not an Arminian analogy.

And obviously Arminians do not place man equal to God any more than Christ was in Matt 18's parable.

In Christ,

Bob[/qb]

No but the Arminian doctrine is synergism and the calvinist doctrine is monergism. You say that God's grace is not sufficient for salvation but must be added to man's free will. Thus it is a partnership. I say that it is God's doing, with man the grateful recipient.

Yours is still a salvation of works, as feeble as your describe, they are still works. I proclaim that salvation is God's grace and apart from works. The differences are stark.

Charlie

[ December 20, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Charlie T ]

 

[Charlie T]

Bob,

John 12:32 That "all" issue again. God calls all kinds of men to Him.

Romans 9:21-22 really speaks for itself. Interesting how you turned the scripture 180 degrees. But not accurate.

Despite our exchange of disagreements, I hope that I am not angering you or causing you grief. It is not my intention.

Sometimes it is difficult to tell in text communication.

Charlie

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Charlie T
I do agree that sometimes "all" does mean each and every one. For example "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (Jn 6:37) And "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (Jn 6:45b) Some of the context can be seen in the negative statements such as "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (Jn 6:65.)

And so - "Drawing ALL mankind" John 12:32 in that context of "ALL drawn" in John 6 - is particularly devastating to Calvinism's case.

In Christ,

Bob</font>[/QUOTE]So what you're saying is that God draws all mankind (meaning ever person who ever lived and ever will live), but only enables some (no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father).

Sounds like your view is the one that best fits the "precious daughter" scenario you keep bringing up. "Hey, don't blame me. I drew her along with everyone else. I just didn't feel like enabling her to respond and come to me."

 

[BobRyan]

npetreley
So what you're saying is that God draws all mankind (meaning ever person who ever lived and ever will live), but only enables some (no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father).

Nope I never said that God draws ALL (John 12:32) but that that drawing "only ENABLES some to choose".

I am claiming that ALL are drawn and ALL are ENABLED to choose. Funny thing about free will - is that you don't HAVE to choose only one of the options.

----------------------

npetreley
Sounds like your view is the one that best fits the "precious daughter" scenario you keep bringing up. "Hey, don't blame me. I drew her along with everyone else. I just didn't feel like enabling her to respond and come to me."

Good point! Lets plug the view of God that Arminianism discovers in scripture into that acid test of the future and see what happens.

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 - we 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" as some have said of the picture that Calvinism paints of God. -- But I know that "not many" will do so - even among Calvinists because the comparison is obvious - blatant and clear.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 21, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[KenH]

The drawing by God is not a mere enabling. Man is enabled by being regenerated and regeneration always results in the person regenerated coming to Jesus. Enabling is a result of God's drawing through the regenerating work(being born again, or from above) of the Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as a partial salvation taught in the Bible, or of being partially regenerated, or of being partially drawn.

God never does anything halfway(like we often do) but always completes whatever He wills and purposes to do.

[ December 21, 2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Ken H ]

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly we differ there - on "exactly how God enables" as well as calling "it halfway" for God not to force the will along with enabling, or not to lock Adam into remaining sinnless, or in not forcing Lucifer to remain faithful...

But - it is great news to at least get down to the "real point of difference" instead of pretending that the enabling of mankind through the John 12:32 "Drawing of God" is "insufficient to allow man to choose" as the posts always start out asserting about the Arminian position.

You may not find that "Every Arminian" accepts the principle of total depravity as a "given" -- while many other Arminians DO accept it. But they ALL claim that the John 12:32 "Drawing of ALL mankind" applies to ALL mankind. And the Calvinists ALL claim that the John 12:32 principle "is sufficient to ENABLE what total depravity DISABLES".

So they reach the same point via the same means without seeing the picture fully. Then the "real difference" is in two parts...

#1. Arminians believe that it is "ALL MANKIND" in John 12:32 while Calvinist tend to rework it as "ALL kinds of mankind - as in the arbitrarily selected FEW of MATT 7 on the Narrow Road". (OF those Calvinist that accept Christ's Matt 7 word as definative of the full result at the end of time).

#2. Arminians believe that the ENABLING is in the form "I STAND (outside the door of the heart) and Knock - IF ANY MAN hears my voice and (chooses) to OPEN the door I will COME in and fellowship with Him" Rev 3:20.

I realize that although those two differences are stated in a Biblically correct way - it does present Calvinism in a less than positive light - and that a Calvinist restatement of the above as Ken has done would try to do it the other way around.

But I accept that as "the difference" - the real differnce instead of all the smoke that gets blown around on whether man is able to choose given that we believe that "ALL mankind" is the correct view of John 12:32.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 22, 2002, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]