IF Once Were Arminist, What verse(s) Forced You To calvinism?

[JesusFan]

Let's nail this down right now...

Are you saying that if God (you know, GOD) desires something (including the salvation of an individual!) that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?

IF it is indeed Gods Will that NONE should perish, ALL come to repentence and belief in Christ Jesus...

IF Jesus died for ALL Mankind Unlimited Atonement...

Wouldn't God either elect ALL to eternal life in Christ, since He wills ALL to come to Christ, or

We have a misundering from the Arminian side here on just WHAT Will and All of God means?

 

[Skandelon]

Let's nail this down right now...

Are you saying that if God (you know, GOD) desires something (including the salvation of an individual!) that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?

But we don't believe that God wants to MAKE or EFFECTUALLY CAUSE someone to be saved, we believe God delights in those who humbly admit their sin and need for Him and in faith accept his appeal to be reconciled.

No one here is denying God's ability to make people worship him, we just believe that is a back up plan if no one chooses to do so willingly...."if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

 

[glfredrick]

And I haven't taken issue with those posts because we stand in agreement here. But in this post you overstepped those bounds by drawing conclusions about our system of belief that we don't claim.

Again, I can only go by the words you post, not what you harbor about them in your mind. You wrote concerning the actions of man in salvation, and to that I responded. More so, you do likewise often, but when called out about it, you backpedal into your theology instead of what you actually said. The two are not always cohesive.

They do. Even Calvinists affirm that. You are confusing "unconditional election" and subsequent regeneration (or what some refer to as effectual calling) with "unconditional salvation." Salvation is not unconditional in either system, unless you equate election with salvation. Most Calvinists affirm that man must believe to be saved. Can you point me to any scholars that don't?

I am confusing nothing. I am quite well versed in both Calvinism and Arminianism as theological systems. You, here, are working to erect a strawman that I never propose.

You are simply incorrect. I affirm the need of an initial work of Grace, I just differ with SOME Arminians on the means through which that prevenient grace is administered. I believe God has always chosen to work through means. He works to reveal himself through the WORD. He inspires, preserves, carries, indwells messengers, builds His Church to preach, all for the purpose of spreading His Word, the truth. Truth will set man free! God works through his revelation and I believe the scripture teaches that HE always works to reveal himself through His appointed means.

To follow this line or reasoning (as is done by you and others concerning Calvinism), exactly WHICH form of Arminianism do you hold? As I recall, you tend to "shape-shift" between Wesleyan and Classical positions, with some caveats and non-Arminian tenets thrown in for good measure when necessary to make your points.

And, if you hold to the tenets outlined above, then you hold to biblical tenets, except as how they are ultimately defined, which is where (I believe) the conflict enters. Interestingly, I hold the exact same tenets, because they are biblical. But, I do not hold to a manufactured grace called "previnient" because it is patently not biblical. I believe, at the end of the day, that you do not hold to previnient grace either, because it is impossible to defend. I see you bouncing between a totally man-centered effort (in the realm of faith and response) and a Calvinistic understanding of God's work in salvation, depending on how hard you are pressed to the wall on the issue.

Yes, he could just internally flip a switch inside of his creatures making their wills change. But He just doesn't ever do that in scripture...He uses storms and big fish, He uses blinding lights and messengers, He uses nail scared hands, He uses envy, He uses signs and wonders, He uses persuasion, He uses teaching and preaching, He uses the church. He works IN an THROUGH these means to bring understanding so that all are without excuse. So, I affirm the need for so called "prevenient grace," I just refuse to separate that from the outward/normative means God has clearly appointed to work IN and THROUGH.

But, if you understand Calvinism (and the Scriptures) as well as you suggest, then you KNOW that is not how it works, nor is that how Calvinists (save perhaps the "beyond Scripture" hyper-Calvinist position) define the issue. God does not save by election, nor does He "flip a switch" making one an instant saint (save for the instantaneous nature of His actions in salvation).

The issue is perhaps WHY He uses the things (biblical things!) you list above? I believe that you would say, "So the man can make a decision concerning Christ based on that man's own interpretation and faith..." and I would say, "So the Holy Spirit can confirm in a man's heart that God is truth and begin the work of regeneration."

The difference is that in my view the means actually accomplish a purpose, whereas in your system they apparently are just for show.

Absolutely not... Once again, you demonstrate that your purported knowledge of Calvinism is sadly lacking. You really think the system of theology THAT shallow? Really? Perhaps it is time for you to re-investigate the theology in a way that befits the level of scholarship that you bring to the table.

 

[glfredrick]

Scholars disagree as to when the judical hardening will be lifted from the Jews, but I believe it was during the time of Paul because that is what Paul seems to believe when he anticipates those hardened to be provoke to envy by HIS ministry to the Gentiles and thus saved. Once Christ was lifted up he would draw all people to himself. Prior to his acentions he was hiding the gospel and even his own apostles didn't fully understand the gospel until Paul was called to go to the Gentiles and Peter had his dream.

Did Paul not make the argument that as goes the Jew, so too goes the Gentile? If the Jews were "hardened" how much more so the utterly sinful, un-elected Gentiles, who before Christ really had no hope of salvation (save for God's missional election all the way back in Genesis 3 and the Noahic Covenant, re-capitulated in Abraham, et al).

 

[glfredrick]

But we don't believe that God wants to MAKE or EFFECTUALLY CAUSE someone to be saved, we believe God delights in those who humbly admit their sin and need for Him and in faith accept his appeal to be reconciled.

No one here is denying God's ability to make people worship him, we just believe that is a back up plan if no one chooses to do so willingly...."if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

Nice dodge...

Try again. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Nice dodge...

Try again. :thumbs:

There is no dodging taking place Fredrick. You're question presumed that we believe God wants to save everyone without condition but somehow can't because He isn't powerful enough, which is not what we believe. If you are going to debate, you must debate what we actually believe, not your own presumptions of what we believe. That is called a "straw-man fallacy."

 

[glfredrick]

There is no dodging taking place Fredrick. You're question presumed that we believe God wants to save everyone without condition but somehow can't because He isn't powerful enough, which is not what we believe. If you are going to debate, you must debate what we actually believe, not your own presumptions of what we believe. That is called a "straw-man fallacy."

We're not debating debate tactics here. I asked you a VERY simple question.

Are you saying that if God (you know, GOD) desires something (including the salvation of an individual!) that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?

The answer is yes or no. Either, yes, someone CAN cause God to fail or no, someone cannot cause God to fail.

 

[Skandelon]

Did Paul not make the argument that as goes the Jew, so too goes the Gentile?

Yes, that is how he concluded the Romans 11 when he said, "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might show mercy to all men."

The revelation was brought the Jews first and when they (generally speaking) rejected it, he cut them off from that revelation and sent the revelation to the Gentiles, who haven't grown hardened to his revelation. But, cutting them off IS NOT an act of certain condemnation to hell. It is actually an act of mercy because it allows for the possibility of being provoked by envy and their salvation. Read through Rom 11 again and I think this point is very clearly made.

 

[Skandelon]

We're not debating debate tactics here. I asked you a VERY simple question.

The answer is yes or no. Either, yes, someone CAN cause God to fail or no, someone cannot cause God to fail.

Ok, you are not getting it. Let's try this way:

Does God desire you, a believer, to sin? No.

Do you sin sometimes? Yes.

So did God fail?

See, my point now?

 

[DHK]

You assume that I'm debating Christ's action in salvation -- and/or -- using the first person to describe salvation. I am debating neither. I mentioned your point because you seem to think that the "I" is rather more important that it actually is. In a sense, the "I" does not exist until such time as Christ makes it alive, which is why I said that salvation is of Christ.

I doubt that there is anyone on this board, Cal or nonCal, that disputes the fact that salvation "is all of God." The interpretation of that phrase is another thing. Salvation is all of God. However salvation is by faith and faith alone. Salvation and regeneration take place simultaneously. Having said that God does not give faith to the unregenerate, neither to the unsaved. No one on this board has ever pointed to a Scripture that has been able to refute that point.

I can, and let me reiterate that I, it is I, that can rejoice in my salvation. I was saved by Christ. Christ saved me. Christ was the object of my salvation. I put my faith in him. He saved me. I am saved by the power of his blood. Yes salvation is all of God. But not being able to testify of his saving grace is a pitiful thing indeed.

 

[Skandelon]

but when called out about it, you backpedal into your theology instead of what you actually said.

General and unspecified accusations don't fly here. Post my "actual words" and where I "backpedaled" and then I'll respond. I've not backpedalled or contradicted myself in anyway, but you may have misunderstood something. By suppling the actual quotes instead of making blanket accusations those misunderstandings can be brought to light.

I am confusing nothing. I am quite well versed in both Calvinism and Arminianism as theological systems. You, here, are working to erect a strawman that I never propose.

Let me post your own words and show you how you have contradicted yourself. You wrote, that you don't believe "man and man's efforts play a pivotal role in the salvific endeavor." Yet, even Calvinists affirm the need for man to believe in Christ for salvation. In other words, salvation is conditioned upon faith even in your system. Election and the effectual calling is unconditional.

To follow this line or reasoning (as is done by you and others concerning Calvinism), exactly WHICH form of Arminianism do you hold? As I recall, you tend to "shape-shift" between Wesleyan and Classical positions, with some caveats and non-Arminian tenets thrown in for good measure when necessary to make your points.

Which form of Calvinism do you hold to? I hold to scripture and sometimes it aligns with Calvin's teaching, Arminians teaching, and even your teaching. I side with the scholar who agrees with what I believe any particular passage is teaching, don't you?

But, I do not hold to a manufactured grace called "previnient" because it is patently not biblical.

Actually, that is one of the reasons I don't use that term either.

I see you bouncing between a totally man-centered effort (in the realm of faith and response) and a Calvinistic understanding of God's work in salvation, depending on how hard you are pressed to the wall on the issue.

You may perceive it that way because you have not fully come to understand our perspectives, but I assure you there is no 'bouncing' or 'backpedaling' going on. If you objectively and honestly deal with my arguments I think you will see that.

But, if you understand Calvinism (and the Scriptures) as well as you suggest, then you KNOW that is not how it works, nor is that how Calvinists (save perhaps the "beyond Scripture" hyper-Calvinist position) define the issue. God does not save by election, nor does He "flip a switch" making one an instant saint (save for the instantaneous nature of His actions in salvation).

I wasn't meaning to suggest that is what you believe. If you read my words again and attempt to understand me instead of debate me, you will see that I'm equating the concept of Regeneration/New Birth to the "flipping of a switch" by which man's heart/will is supernaturally changed and thus made willing to believe and accept Christ.

Absolutely not... Once again, you demonstrate that your purported knowledge of Calvinism is sadly lacking. You really think the system of theology THAT shallow? Really? Perhaps it is time for you to re-investigate the theology in a way that befits the level of scholarship that you bring to the table.

Ok, then explain what role envy or miraculous signs might play in salvation that is not really accomplished by the "irresistible/effectual calling" of your system?

 

[JesusFan]

I doubt that there is anyone on this board, Cal or nonCal, that disputes the fact that salvation "is all of God." The interpretation of that phrase is another thing. Salvation is all of God. However salvation is by faith and faith alone. Salvation and regeneration take place simultaneously. Having said that God does not give faith to the unregenerate, neither to the unsaved. No one on this board has ever pointed to a Scripture that has been able to refute that point.

I can, and let me reiterate that I, it is I, that can rejoice in my salvation. I was saved by Christ. Christ saved me. Christ was the object of my salvation. I put my faith in him. He saved me. I am saved by the power of his blood. Yes salvation is all of God. But not being able to testify of his saving grace is a pitiful thing indeed.

Just a question...

When the Apostle Paul became a believer in Christ, he was in a sinful condition, heart and mind bent on destroying the Church, llaspheming name of Christ, he was a false messiah to him...

Paul did not "hear" the Gospel at damascus Road, was knocked down physically and spiritually...

IF God did not "force" him to believe on the One he was persucuting...

Just How would Paul have gotten saved and changed?

In others word...

was the Grace God extended to paul at that moment in time irresistable or not?

 

[glfredrick]

Ok, you are not getting it. Let's try this way:

Does God desire you, a believer, to sin? No.

Do you sin sometimes? Yes.

So did God fail?

See, my point now?

I saw your point before, but you still have not answered my question... :love2:

 

[DHK]

Just a question...

When the Apostle Paul became a believer in Christ, he was in a sinful condition, heart and mind bent on destroying the Church, llaspheming name of Christ, he was a false messiah to him...

Paul did not "hear" the Gospel at damascus Road, was knocked down physically and spiritually...

IF God did not "force" him to believe on the One he was persucuting...

Just How would Paul have gotten saved and changed?

In others word...

was the Grace God extended to paul at that moment in time irresistable or not?

Paul persecuted Christians. No doubt he had heard the gospel many times from those he persecuted.

But most of all he heard it from Stephen. He stood there holding Stephen's clothes, giving consent to his stoning, having listened to his sermon. No doubt he was one of the one's convicted "gnashing his teeth," resisting the convicting of the Holy Spirit. He had heard the gospel. Now it was only a matter of submitting to Christ.

The fact that Christ says:
"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." (Acts 9:5),
indicates that he had heard the gospel, was convicted by it, and had kept on refusing the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Skandelon]

I saw your point before, but you still have not answered my question... :love2:

Answer this and you'll have your answer: :love2:

Does God desire you, a believer, to sin? No.

Do you sin sometimes? Yes.

So did God fail?

 

[JesusFan]

Paul persecuted Christians. No doubt he had heard the gospel many times from those he persecuted.

But most of all he heard it from Stephen. He stood there holding Stephen's clothes, giving consent to his stoning, having listened to his sermon. No doubt he was one of the one's convicted "gnashing his teeth," resisting the convicting of the Holy Spirit. He had heard the gospel. Now it was only a matter of submitting to Christ.

The fact that Christ says:
"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." (Acts 9:5),
indicates that he had heard the gospel, was convicted by it, and had kept on refusing the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

So he had heard the message of Christ probably several times, kept on hardening himself against the conviction of Holy Spirit, faith comes by hearing by word of God...

So left to his own devices, would have stayed hard and bitter towards Christ...

Didn't God HAVE to directly intervene and 'force" Paul to repent and believe on Jesus, in order to fulfill His plan of him being an Apostle....

Didn't God grant paul "irresistable" grace at that very moment in time, as Paul compelled to believe on the one he agreed should have done as being a false messiah?

 

[Aaron]

Ok, you are not getting it. Let's try this way:

Does God desire you, a believer, to sin? No.

Do you sin sometimes? Yes.

So did God fail?

See, my point now?

Can't get a straight answer out of this guy.

 

[glfredrick]

Can't get a straight answer out of this guy.

I agree, and I've tried before...

The reason Skandelon cannot answer without turning the conversation in another direction is that the answer will devastate his position and he knows it. That is akin to coming falsely to the God who I believe CAN and DOES do whatever He wishes at any time and with any person.

 

[Aaron]

Let me post your own words and show you how you have contradicted yourself. You wrote, that you don't believe "man and man's efforts play a pivotal role in the salvific endeavor." Yet, even Calvinists affirm the need for man to believe in Christ for salvation. In other words, salvation is conditioned upon faith even in your system. Election and the effectual calling is unconditional.

Belief is a state of being. Nobody chooses to believe anything. He either does or doesn't. The carnal mind cannot believe. It is a trait of one born of the Spirit. Like short and bald might be a trait in your family. (I can't know, obviously—I'm just saying.)

You might as well affirm that you have a pivotal role in the numbering of the hairs on your head, or that by taking thought you can add one cubit to your stature.

Now why don't you just answer the guy, can man thwart God's will? Yes or No? We're not asking for alibis.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree, and I've tried before...

The reason Skandelon cannot answer without turning the conversation in another direction is that the answer will devastate his position and he knows it. That is akin to coming falsely to the God who I believe CAN and DOES do whatever He wishes at any time and with any person.

:laugh: You two are funny.

Have you stopped kicking your dog? Yes or no?

Why can't you answer? Uh? Why? You're dodging! :laugh: