Is this the Arminian Stumper?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I would love to hear a Reformed Baptist preacher expound on Matthew 13:3-8.

The verses immediately following that destroy your position though. There, Christ speaks in parables to hide the gospel from some so that they will not be saved. That is strange coming from someone who wants to save everyone; why hide it from those you are tryign to save?

Once again, you demonstrate selective reading of the text, which is why we reject your position. We use it all; you only use a part of it.

[ January 21, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[4study]

I thought I had given my answer to the question "why do some people accept and others reject" yet never got much of a response. So here it is again.

I believe human beings, by their nature, have the same faculty of choice that Adam had before the fall. If you explain to yourself the reason for Adam's choices in Genesis 2 and 3, you'll be explaining the answer to the above question ("why some accept and others reject").

Note: I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that one persuasion thinks the only other option is the opposite persuasion. For example, to be anything other than Calvinist is to be Arminian. I propose this is not the case at all. Believing in CHOICE does not mean "Arminian". Nor does is it mean you have to believe in "man gets the glory". Yet the presumptions weigh heavy on one's understanding of these theological concepts. If you've been exposed to the Arminian theology and then persuaded that Calvinistic veiws were correct, you'll be prone to be adverse against anything that even sounds like the Arminian way of thinking. I suggest the opposite is true as well and perhaps any other mainstream theology. Our preconcieved ideas captiviate us!

 

[4study]

Regarding scriptures discussed here,

Part of the problem, IMO, is most believed every scripture must be expounded in light of "born again" or "lost". Why must we assume that Matt. 13 is regarding those who are "lost" or "born again"? Why must we assume Romans 9 has anything to do with the same just because the word "salvation" or "saved" is used?

 

[Skandelon]

nally posted by Ray Berrian:
Samuel,

You have a great name and a Biblical one. My uncle's name was Samuel.

I would love to hear a Reformed Baptist preacher expound on Matthew 13:3-8.
[/QUOTE]Ray,

I like your name too. I have an uncle named Ray, believe it or not. And I love the show "Everybody Loves Raymond."

Anyway, I didn't bother giving a exposition of Matt. 13:3-8 because Christ himself does that in the verses immediately following. Which I'm sure most Arminian theologian must struggle with verse 11 and following.

LOOK AT THE NEXT PARABLE OF THE WEEDS IN BEGINNING IN VERSE 24.

Jesus clearly teaches that there is wheat (the elect) and there are weeds (the non-elect). I would love to hear an Arminian Th.D. expound on that.

[ January 21, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Samuel:
Jesus clearly teaches that there is wheat (the elect) and there are weeds (the non-elect). I would love to he an Arminian Th.D. expound on that.

"but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat"

Obviously, the proper way to interpret this is that the enemy did not actually sow anything. This is just a figure of speech that means the enemy tempted the wheat, and some of the wheat chose to become weeds of their own free will.

 

[4study]

Continuing with my "part of the problem" comment,

Another issue effecting one's interpretation of the scriptures is an understanding of the term "elect". If you believe "the elect" refers to the "born again ones" then you'll see scriptures in light of that deffinition. In other words, everyting will be "born again" or "lost". The question is, is that a proper view of what God is doing? For instance, if the nation of Isreal can be called "the chosen of God", does that mean no one else in any other nation is "born again"? Of course not. Better yet, if only eight souls were "saved" from the flood, does that necessary imply that everyone else was "lost"? I don't think so. Something to think about...

If you decide for yourself that everything in God's Word is primarily focused upon the concept of "born again" and "lost" you're going to have problems. This is why, IMO, there is so much confusion over the meaning of particular scriptures (i.e. Romans 9). The issues with Matt. 13 are going to be no different.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by 4study:
I thought I had given my answer to the question "why do some people accept and others reject" yet never got much of a response. So here it is again.

I believe human beings, by their nature, have the same faculty of choice that Adam had before the fall. If you explain to yourself the reason for Adam's choices in Genesis 2 and 3, you'll be explaining the answer to the above question ("why some accept and others reject").

Note: I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

The fall most definately has had affect on us. To what extent? That is the crux of the debate between us. Scripture uses words like "dead" and "slaves to sin" to describe our condition after the Fall. Paul also informs us that no one seeks after God or even understands Him(Rom 3:10).

4study, what scripture supports your view that our will was not affected by the fall? We are not like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the fall, so it is ridiculous to assume that the reason he ate of the fruit is the same reason you choose to follow Christ.

But, for the sake of arguement, let's just say we are the same as Adam was before the Fall. Adam made a decision, not being aware of Good nor Evil, to disobey God's one and only law. Why?

He was hungry? The woman influenced him? He was an idiot? I don't know. But he made a choice based upon situations and circumstance that were well within God's sovereign control. God could have kept the serpant out of the garden. He could have stopped them from eating. Shoot, why even put the tree there in the first place. No rules, no sin!

He did it for a reason. Why?

Most Arminians might say, "To give mankind a choice. Because true love must have a choice."

To which I ask, "Where is your Scripture to support that?"

EVERYONE PLEASE HEAR THIS:
LOVE IS NOT BORN OUT OF MAN'S FREE WILL CHOICE, IT IS BORN OUT OF GRACE AND MERCY.

The scripture clearly says, "To he who is forgiven much, loves much." We love because HE FIRST LOVE US. Just like my children love me because I love them. They don't consciencly choose to love me. They are born, not by their own wills, and grow into a love relationship with their parents (this assumes the parents are good, like God is good of course)

You may ask, why did God allow the Fall, if not for the sake of Free Will?

Here is what I think:
What if the Father, chose to show his powerful wrath to his creation, so he allowed Satan and his "Sons" to continue in existance, eventhough they were doomed to Hell? What if he did this to prove the awesome power of His glory to his elect, whom he chose for heaven?

Please give me an answer to that with scripture.

[ January 21, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Matthew 13:11 is one of the more easy texts to explain. In the light of the myriad Scriptures that clearly suggest that His death on the Cross was for all of His lost creation, this passage shows in verse eight that only these designated in the parable will finally be saved. The other people because of their love of a certain sin or sins and because of their rebellion against the Lord will never enter Heaven. Verse 11 does not mean that He gladly damned the above souls, but He has eternally known who are or will be the people of God. In Romans 8:29 He did not just predestinate some to Hell and Heaven, He has always known, {prognosis} (foreknown) all who will become the sons and daughters of the living God.

Matthew 13:24 signifies that within the church age there are both saved a lost people who might even believe they are ready for Heaven. The wheat represent the true people of God; those who believe and have trusted in Christ as personal Savior. The tares are still the children of the evil one. The reapers are probably His angels at the end of the age who gather the wheat/believers into Heaven and the tares/the lost to stand before the Great White Throne Judgment.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Samuel,

Please, help me understand 'the bondage of the will' in these Old Covenant and New Covenant verses.

Deuteronomy 30:19; II Chronicles 30:8; Proverbs 1:24-25; Isaiah 65:2; Isaiah 66:3h-4. And in the New Testament you will find: John 5:40; Acts 7:51 and Romans 10:21.

In Acts 24:24-25 Felix 'trembled' not because he forgot to take his pharmaceutical medication, but, on the other hand, was under the conviction and convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit Who he rejected. {Resistible Grace}

In Acts 26:26-28 suggest Resistible Grace in the heart and will of a man who saw the truth in Christ. Almost but lost. Also, in verse 29 the Apostle Paul wishes that ' . . . 'all' would hear and become like Paul because of His infinite grace. Paul was preaching to everyone and not merely so the elect might be brought into the fold.

Have fun with these verses in God's sacred Word.

 

[4study]

Samuel,

The fall most definately has had affect on us. To what extent? That is the crux of the debate between us.

I agree. This is the rub

Scripture uses words like "dead" and "slaves to sin" to describe our condition after the Fall. Paul also informs us that no one seeks after God or even understands Him(Rom 3:10).

I would ask, “dead” to what extent? And, what does “slaves to sin” mean? These are discussions in and of themselves. Your understanding of Rom. 3:10 is different from mine so it cannot be used as “common ground”.

These few statements you’ve made are full of terms and phrases that need common definitions to which we agree. I’m sure your concept of the word “dead” and “sin” is much different than mine. To give you an example, I believe Rom.3:23 applies to Adam before the fall. You might find that offensive. However, this view is due to my belief of what the term “sin” means in that chapter.

4study, what scripture supports your view that our will was not affected by the fall?

Another discussion and another entire thread could be used to discuss this. So for the sake of keeping things brief, suffice it say this comes from my view of the term “nature”. I don’t believe “nature” of anything or anyone changes. Yes, Adam was affected by the fall, but his ability of CHOICE was not.

We are not like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the fall, so it is ridiculous to assume that the reason he ate of the fruit is the same reason you choose to follow Christ.

That’s because you believe Adam’s “nature” changed. I, on the other hand, do not. I believe the results of the fall have nothing to do with “nature”. I believe Adam’s “death” was simply change in position. A “separation” from the presence of God.

Adam made a decision, not being aware of Good nor Evil, to disobey God's one and only law.

I would argue adversely to Adam’s complete unawareness of Good or Evil. Another discussion too. Also, I would argue about your statement of “God’s one and only law”. So you see, we have differences already on what was happening in the Garden of Eden that confuse the issue.

He was hungry? The woman influenced him? He was an idiot? I don't know. But he made a choice based upon situations and circumstance that were well within God's sovereign control.

I agree. Yet the details of “why” Adam made certain decisions is not my point. It’s the concept of Adam’s ability to do so. I also believe he was within God’s sovereign control, yet, I’m sure I see it differently than you do.

What if the Father, chose to show his powerful wrath to his creation, so he allowed Satan and his "Sons" to continue in existance, eventhough they were doomed to Hell? What if he did this to prove the awesome power of His glory to his elect, whom he chose for heaven?

Your answer to this question comes from your view of God, Adam, and the Garden of Eden. Since we differ on those areas, it’s difficult to respond with a "scripture" of which you will certainly interpret differntly than me.

 

[4study]

Ray Berrian,

Matthew 13:11 is one of the more easy texts to explain.

This is because you see it in the light of "born again" or "lost". I would argue that Matt. 13 does not necessarily have anything to do with those who are going to be in heaven or not.

..this passage shows in verse eight that only these designated in the parable will finally be saved.

What brings you to that conclusion? Is it not because you already see this verse in a particular light ("born again" or "lost")?

The other people because of their love of a certain sin or sins and because of their rebellion against the Lord will never enter Heaven.

With all due respect, I think we should be careful about judging who will "never enter Heaven". God is the only one who knows this. To begin catagorizing groups of people and labeling them as "lost" or "unable to enter heaven" can be detrimental to our theology.

IMO, this scripture has nothing to do with who will or will not be in heaven. This is because I believe "born again" individuals can and do reject/disobey God.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Samuel,

In Acts 24:24-25 Felix 'trembled' not because he forgot to take his pharmaceutical medication, but, on the other hand, was under the conviction and convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit Who he rejected. {Resistible Grace}

In Acts 26:26-28 suggest Resistible Grace in the heart and will of a man who saw the truth in Christ. Almost but lost. Also, in verse 29 the Apostle Paul wishes that ' . . . 'all' would hear and become like Paul because of His infinite grace. Paul was preaching to everyone and not merely so the elect might be brought into the fold.

Have fun with these verses in God's sacred Word.

Ray, it sounds like your the one having "fun" with these verses. It must be fun taking a verse out of the Historical narrative of Acts that says, 'Felix was afraid" and conclude that God's saving grace is resistable. That's a bit of a jump. You make some huge assumptions. You assume that he is under conviction of the Holy Spirit, the passage doesn't say that. You must be assuming that his fear is a sign of conviction. If that is the case then we must assume that the record of the demons trembling in James 2 is a sign that God is wooing them too. Where did you learn your hermenutics?

And what you do to Acts 26:29 is appauling for anyone much less an educated man. Paul doesn't "wish" they all would be like him--as you say he does. He prays to God asking that they would be like Him. It seems to me that Paul realized something you don't---IT'S GOD'S CHOICE!

It's not up to Paul's ability to convince the King to become a Christian (I Cor. 2:1-5). And it's not within the King's natural ability to believe Paul's testimony (Jn. 6:29,44; Jn. 10:25-26; Acts 13:48) The King must be born again, just like Nick in John 3.

I prefer the term effectual, instead of irrestiable. People resist God's "common" grace all the time. But His saving Grace (as in being 'born again") will ultimately have the desired effect that God intends it to have. The Lord says, "My Word will not return void but will accomplish the purpose for which I sent it."

I'm curious to how you handle John's gospel? (John chapter's 3, 6 and 10 especially)

 

[Skandelon]

4study, I'm not trying to be mean but it sounds like you base your belief system on your own belief system. You have no support except to say, "I believe this so that's why it's ok for me to believe that." You are not making any intelligent arguements that refute the points that I have made with scripture as my support. Sorry, but I don't care what you think, I care what
God thinks. That's why we have the scripture, please use it!

What if the Father, chose to show his powerful wrath to his creation, so he allowed Satan and his "Sons" to continue in existance, eventhough they were doomed to Hell? What if he did this to prove the awesome power of His glory to his elect, whom he chose for heaven?

Your answer to this question comes from your view of God, Adam, and the Garden of Eden. Since we differ on those areas, it’s difficult to respond with a "scripture" of which you will certainly interpret differntly than me.[/QUOTE]

4study, I trick you. This is not my answer it's Paul's words in Romans 9:22-23. (I paraphased it a bit so you wouldn't reconize it but it is exaclty what Paul is referring to). You said, that this answer comes from my view of God. Well, in that case my view of God must be very similar to Pauls because those were his thoughts originally, not mine.

Gotcha

 

[4study]

it sounds like you base your belief system on your own belief system.

I don't claim that my opinions are worth anything. Neither are your's or anyone else's for that matter. Yet the whole idea of this forum is to dicuss our theology, isn't it? If you and I weren't interested in such things, we wouldn't be here on this forum, correct?

4study, I trick you. This is not my answer it's Paul's words in Romans 9:22-23.

I'm not sure what you're goal is here. I could see, as I'm sure many others did, that you were using phrases from those scriptures in the previous post. Regardless, however, you're interpretation of Romans 9:22-23 is different from mine. I was making a point that you're view is not the same as mine of those scriptures and probably of God in general. This is in no way
implying that you or I are wrong. Just different.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by 4study:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />it sounds like you base your belief system on your own belief system.

I don't claim that my opinions are worth anything. Neither are your's or anyone else's for that matter. Yet the whole idea of this forum is to dicuss our theology, isn't it? If you and I weren't interested in such things, we wouldn't be here on this forum, correct?
</font>[/QUOTE]My point is that you are not debating me with scripture. Your debating me with you opinions of how you think God should be. You are not an authority, scripture is. In other words, I don't care as much about what you believe as I care about why you believe it. You just keep saying I believe this and that, but never give a support for why you hold to those beliefs. I can't debate your opinions, nor do I care to.

[ January 21, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Matthew 13:11 is one of the more easy texts to explain. In the light of the myriad Scriptures that clearly suggest that His death on the Cross was for all of His lost creation, this passage shows in verse eight that only these designated in the parable will finally be saved. The other people because of their love of a certain sin or sins and because of their rebellion against the Lord will never enter Heaven.

No it doesn't. This is creative but bad exegesis. It talks of the mysteries of the kingdom (i.e., the way to eternal life) and says that some have not been granted to know that. The continuing context teaches that the truth ahs been hidden from some.

Verse 11 does not mean that He gladly damned the above souls,

You got this right but your implication that we disagree with you is disgusting and has been corrected many times. I have repeatedly asked for you to cease making these false statements. We agree on this. Talk about the differences not the agreements. Don't make stuff up.

but He has eternally known who are or will be the people of God. In Romans 8:29 He did not just predestinate some to Hell and Heaven, He has always known, {prognosis} (foreknown) all who will become the sons and daughters of the living God.

Assuming that God's knowledge is infallible, man's free will has been removed because what God knows cannot be changed. Therefore these people who were known from eternity cannot change their minds in their life. How unfortunate that God brought people into the world that he knew would reject him. How cruel; how unloving; how unjust. Why did God just not bring them into existence since he knew he was going to damn them anyway? Can you not see the problem with your position? As I have often said, you are no better off than we are; your God is just not in control.

 

[Skandelon]

Go Pastor, Go Pastor, Go Pastor

 

[shilo]

oh never mind..

[ January 22, 2003, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: shilo ]

 

[4study]

Samuel,

Is not one’s interpretation of scripture a matter of opinion? Personally, I do not believe anyone of us is completely free from human weakness to allow an unobscured view of Holy Writ. If I choose to support my comments with scripture, I’m doing nothing more than you; offering a personal opinion as to what that scripture means. Rather than confuse issues more by throwing out scriptures, which IMO are taken out of context anyway, I choose to stick to concepts themselves. You may find if you look closely that some of your concepts are more of a matter of opinion than scripture anyway. For instance, you said Adam was “not aware of Good nor Evil”? What scripture supports this comment? Is it not your opinion? Also, your reference to Romans 9:22,23 is nothing more than you’re opinion of what that scripture means.

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

It talks of the mysteries of the kingdom (i.e., the way to eternal life) and says that some have not been granted to know that.

What leads you to this conclusion? Why does the “mysteries of the kingdom” mean “the way to eternal life” in Matt 13?