Have you EVER switched views?

If man submits to the truth in the word, there will be no power usurped either by the man or by the word. If the power of the man submits to the power in the word, the two powers synergize and become greater than the sum of the two separate powers and that is power in the spirit of man! God promised it and it is delivered through the word, because the word creates faith in God in the man, and there is no greater power than God and God saves those who have faith in Him.

It is the synergized power of the truth in the word and power in the man who submits to the truth of the word, that allows man to resist temptation to evil. It is that power that enables the man to persevere, it is that power, that enables man to have peace in troubled times. It is that power that conforms man into the image of the Christ!

Even so, man alone does have the power to resist the power of the truth of the scriptures, all he has to do is reject it. Likewise the Holy Spirit, which man can of his own free will reject.

 

"if you CAN resist"???

"If I CAN rebell against God's LAW then I am more powerful than God's Law"????

Suppose Adam reasoned as the Calvinist in the quote above --
"If I CAN choose against God's sinless perfect will for me - then I am more powerful than God"

What kind of arguments are these from our Calvinist brethren?????

 

Yes, because many do not have a strong grasp of the Scriptures, and so they are fair game when a pre-fabricated philosophical theory comes along with the veneer of biblical orthodoxy and intellectual vigour. Happily, I personally made the trip back again out of calvinistic scholasticism, and it was well worth it!

 

Yes, because many do not have a strong grasp of the Scriptures, and so they are fair game when a pre-fabricated philosophical theory comes along with the veneer of biblical orthodoxy and intellectual vigour. Happily, I personally made the trip back again out of calvinistic scholasticism, and it was well worth it! </font>[/QUOTE]That's great to hear, but did you go to Arminianism? OR did you simply stay Christian without any other labels. There are afterall many more choices that Calvin and Arminius.

 

I decided just to believe the Bible and see where it leads. That pretty much puts me in the Arminian position - what else is out there? I would be interested to know - maybe I would agree with that without knowing it.

 

Well there is Paulinianism,Apollonism, Hennism, Schulerism, etc. Generally any prominent expositor to whom one lends greater credance and attaches one's own "theology to.

Modern Examples might include, McArthurism, Chuck Smithism, Robert Schulersism, Hadden Robinsonism, Benny Hennism, TBNism, and a myraid of others.

 

You pots keep on taking pride in being able to talk back to the potter.... it will catch up to you...

 

Good job Bob... now you are staring to think clearly....

You CAN'T resist want God wants... He will accomplish ALL that He wills... That's our whole point!

Wes will talk all day in the POSITIVE of those who CHOOSE God but can't talk about those who RESIST Him, according to His (Wes's) theology because He doesn't have an answer to it.

 

The lake of fire is full of those who resisted God! What more is there to say?

 

Seems to me you are "the pot that's calling the kettle black!"

It seems your focus is entirely too narrow in scope!

 

You might want to tell us again at this point why some are persuaded while others are not.

I think you finally acknowledged that it was the merit of the man's good choice... which while a basically honest answer for an arminian to own up to... is still contradictory to the term "grace".

 

"if you CAN resist"???

"If I CAN rebell against God's LAW then I am more powerful than God's Law"????

Suppose Adam reasoned as the Calvinist in the quote above --
"If I CAN choose against God's sinless perfect will for me - then I am more powerful than God"

What kind of arguments are these from our Calvinist brethren????? </font>[/QUOTE]Man cannot resist the Word of God always. If he fails to submit to it in this life surely his knee will bow at judgment when he is cast into everlasting torment.

 

You might want to tell us again at this point why some are persuaded while others are not.</font>[/QUOTE]Some like chicken while others do not! and that is the reason why there are "Southern Baptists" and "all others"! When I made a move to join a Southern Baptist Church, I was told that I had to love Southern Fried Chicken to be a good Southern Baptist.

I am not Arminian, do not adhere to Arminian theology, and reject the notion that Arminius is anything more than a man who loves God. I have not acknowledged what you say.
Man's ability to hear the word and believe is not a meritorious "effort" or achievement, because every human who has ever lived, is living or will live, has the same ability, the same word, and yes the same opportunity, therefore there is no merit in making a choice that all mankind is able to make.

You, on the other hand are completely clueless about God's created man.

 

No Wes,
You are completely clueless on theology.

If God gave everybody "free will" and the choice is up to them, the decision is one of virtue. If there isn't virtue in it God would be unjust in His punishment of the decision against Him.

What I am doing to turning the argument around that Arminians use (falsely) about the election of God. They say "If God only enables those who He chose it is "unjust" to punish those who He didn't choose, for they where doing what He wanted them to do.

Well, if it is UNJUST for God to punish men for not choosing Him (because they have not been enabled) then it is EQUAL on the flip side (this is what Arminius DID NOT even attempt to justify.) which is what I stated above. The choice would have to be a reward for VIRTUE based upon the equality of the choice as the punishment for the non virtuous one. If you say God doesn't reward me because my choice was virtuous than God is again "unjust" for punishing those who made an non virtuous decision.

 

Good point Wes.

It is the "SAME" reason that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels fell but 2/3's did not. Just being by nature SINLESS did not stop the 1/3 from making bad choices and did not force the 2/3 to make a good choice. They freely chose!

It is the SAME reason that sinless perfect Adam and Eve fell -- "free will". They were ABLE to choose and they did.

As we see in Job 1 and 2 - compelling data, evidence and pursuasive debate/argument is what compells choice.

And as we see with the 1/3 vs 2/3 that still does not mean that ALL will make the same choice in every case.

Having BEGUN with that principle EVEN in a sinLESS environment how much MORE prevalent in a faulty sinFUL context. Mankind ENABLED to choose (by the supernatural drawing of ALL mankind to God) may still make a bad choice.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is that supposed to make sense?

If so - I missed it.

Lets try Romans "instead" --

Now to this point we have had introduced the subject of God's infallible judgment and contrasted it to man's faulty judgment. We have also seen mercy - kindness - grace that leads us to repent. This chapter starts with the basics that all need to repent.

The Context for Romans 2 is STARTING with judgment, AND of the mercy of God that leads to repentance.

Let's continue letting the scripture speak for itself;

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”.

He speaks of this again in 2Cor 5 talking about future judgment and judged based on deeds “whether they be good or evil”.

Notice that in these first 6 verses we have an Arminian-style motivation - not to engage in man's faulty judgment of others. And there is no sense or expectation that this sin is not to stop or just to continue because we are totally depraved. Rather the argument is to stop.

Further - if this chapter is only about the failing case, only about the wrath of God - then we will not find success, mercy, reward but only condemnation, wrath, punishment. Let's now let the text reveal which way it will go.

Here is the “succeeding case” explicitly listed by Paul. And it is in the context of God - leading to repentance. We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

The “Failing case”: Clearly a contrast is being introduced "but to those who are selfish" - contrasted with what? Those who repent, seek eternal glory and honor and persevere. Persevere in what?

You must be on the right path to be approved in perseveringly staying on the right path. It is obvious I know, but worth noting.

So God has now contrasted the good and the wicked, those who persevere on the right path and those who are not even on it.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" while others are lost for doing evil. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or magic phrase) allowing some of the rebels in.

Interesting that there are two different systems – one to address those who HAVE scripture and one to address those who do not.

Paul appears to be in harmony with Christ here as Christ said that those who knew there master's will and did it not receive many lashes but those that did not know the master's will and yet did deeds worthy of punishment - receive few

notice that Christ does not assume everyone goes to hell anymore than Paul would make such an absurd statement in Romans 2. Rather the chapter is in context with the call for repentance as noted at the start.

having shown us both the group that in the future obtain immortality and the group that in the future suffer the wrath after the future judgment of God - Paul now summs it up - the justification that is future will be for the doers and not for those who are proven to be merely hearers.

This is not a fact that Paul then goes on to deny in the rest of the book of Romans. Rather he continues to strongly endorse it (note particularly Romans 6). John McAarthur did an excellent series on this point - titled "the power over sin".

Paul now continues with the succeeding case! Yes that is right! His argument works and he gives a very simple proving case.

There actually were Gentiles that really did not have the Law of God! That is very important to understand. And there were those who did instinctively the things of the Law showing it was written on their heart!! Wow! So that means Paul really was right!

Even more interesting is the fact that this terminology regarding "the Law written on the heart" is new covenant terminology. Heb 8, 2Cor 3!!! Yes indeed we have the succeeding case as well as the failing case made in this non-myopic chapter of God's infallible word.

wow! Apparently the infallible word is telling us that it is gospel - good news that a future judgment, where the Gentiles are shown to be doers of the Law and not merely hearers only, is coming. A future Christ centered judgment!! What a Christ-centered gospel Paul has in this chapter!!

2Cor 5:10

=========================================

notice the contrast between those that repent and perservere in doing good, and those that cause God's name to be blasphemed! This is not a chapter claiming that all Jews cause God to be blasphemed. It is not a chapter declaring that all Jews have not repented. It is not a chapter declaring that no Jews are saved i the judgment.

Rather it points to both the rebellion blasphemer on the one hand and the perservering and repentant on the other.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Oui vay!

 

In other words.... what a waist of time !