Is this the Arminian Stumper?

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by 4study:

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 just don't get it. Anyone could say they believe something, the debate is about WHY? What is your basis, support, logic...anything except "IMO"!!!

Yes, interpretation is a matter of opinion, but you are not giving any opinions about you're interpretations of scripture. You're merely saying, "I believe this and that." Where's the beef? I need some support.

If I said, "I believe pig's can fly." How can you argue that with me, except to say, "No they can't the law of gravity and the physical limitations of pigs won't allow it.

Then what if I said, "Well that what you believe about the law of gravity because that's the way you interpret it, but its not what I believe."

That is not an arguement! That's just a statement.

An arguement might be, "I believe pigs can fly because I saw one at Macy's Parade."

Ok, now I understand your arguement, Why? Because you have given your support for why you believe it. Now, I can correct you or just better understand you. Geeeeezzz work with me here.

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.

Gen. 3:5 says, "For God knows when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." I'm sorry I didn't give a reference I thought this was common knowledge.

My reference to Rom. 9:22-23 was not my opinion it was a pharaphase of the actual text, of which you never gave any opposing interpretation.

[ January 22, 2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

[4study]

Samuel,

I understand your frustration with me. Since you quoted another scripture, allow me to use it as an example of how certain things we believe are not in “black and white” and are a matter of personal theology.

Gen. 3:5 says, "For God knows when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." I'm sorry I didn't give a reference I thought this was common knowledge.

Concerning this you said Adam was not “aware of Good nor Evil”? Where does it say this in Gen. 3:5? Where does it say that Adam had no knowledge whatsoever of good and evil? All it says is “your eyes will be opened”. Does this necessarily mean his eyes were completely closed to the comprehension of good vs. evil? Don’t you think that Adam must have had some understanding of these things? How else would he know he was doing “wrong” when he disobeyed? How would Adam be aware of the concept of obedience vs. disobedience if he was completely oblivious to good and evil? Why would God even hold him accountable? You see, I interpret this verse in Genesis different from you. I believe Adam had a measure of knowledge by virtue of his intellegence while Gen. 3:5 has to do with a complete knowledge. Not all or nothing. And both sides, yours and mine, are a matter of opinion.

Sorry, I cannot begin to offer my opinon on Romans 9 given that we're not on the same page on Genesis 3:5.

 

[Ray Berrian]

4study,

If you have read the Bible lately sinners and those who practice sinning don't go to Heaven. [I John 3:8.] The word commiteth in the Greek means {practice}. Those who practice sinning are of the Devil and end up in a place called Hell. You are way off orthodoxy if you don't know this. And with your statement, I might guess that you might not be able to judge between a child of God and a wilful sinner. But, I hope you can see the difference.

With respect,
Ray

 

[Skandelon]

4study, I was not meaning that Adam didn't realize that he was disobeying God when took of the fruit. He did know it was wrong. I was agreeing with you in my orginal quote about Adam's choosing fruit. You missed my whole point. My arguement was that we are not like Adam, we are in a fallen state. I quoted several passages to back that up. They went unanswered, except to say "I don't believe it that way." Which once again is no arguement at all.

But if you remember, for arguements sake I overlooked that fact that we are in a fallen state and wrote this:

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.

Now can we please address these arguements. But it will have to wait until tomorrow, you make me tired...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by 4study:
What leads you to this conclusion? Why does the “mysteries of the kingdom” mean “the way to eternal life” in Matt 13?

Because that is what the passage is about -- the different responses to the seed, which is the word of God.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Samuel,

I'm surprised that you assumed that demons would get a second opportunity to regain their lost estate in Heaven. I think if you check with some Calvinistic brethren you will find they don't think this will happen.

 

[4study]

Ray Berrian,

Those who practice sinning are of the Devil and end up in a place called Hell.

So those who practice sin are going to hell. If we take that premise and carry it through the Bible we should be able to make the following conclusions. All except Noah and his family went to hell. Saul (king of Israel) went to hell. Solomon (king of Israel) went to hell. Nicodemus (a Pharisee) went to hell. Those who forsook Paul (2Tim.4:10) went to hell. All because at some point in their lives they practiced sin. Are you certain I John 3:8 makes this claim? I’m not. Yet if it did, where do we draw the line? Can children of God practice sin? According to I John, it would appear not. However, did not the people of Israel practice sin? What about those of the Corinthian church?

 

[Ray Berrian]

Samuel,

On January 21 at 3:48 p.m. I entered a post with a list of Old and New Covenant verses. Do you believe they teach 'Free Will' or 'the Bondage of the Will'? You will find it on page 5.

 

[4study]

Samuel,

I was not meaning that Adam didn't realize that he was disobeying God when took of the fruit. He did know it was wrong.

Wait. You said Adam was “ not aware of Good nor Evil”. Here you say, “he did know it was wrong”. So which is it? These two statements appear contradictory. To you, they may not be at all, so perhaps you can explain why you used the terms “not aware of Good nor Evil”.

My arguement was that we are not like Adam, we are in a fallen state. I quoted several passages to back that up.

And I replied to that argument. I note in your first comments you mentioned no scripture except for an allusion to Romans 9. There are only two scriptures you’ve used so far; Gen.3:5 and Rom.9:22,23. And Gen 3:5 is what we’ve discussed thus far.

You asked me to discuss scripture and I have. In this last post, you’ve provided no reply to my last post on Gen 3:5. Are you interested in discussing this any further? To me, what you believe about Gen. 3:5 is important to this thread if I am going to continue. Why? Because it has much to do with what we believe about the conecpt of CHOICE and what we believe "the fallen state" is.

Note: I'm not Arminian.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Samuel,

I'm surprised that you assumed that demons would get a second opportunity to regain their lost estate in Heaven. I think if you check with some Calvinistic brethren you will find they don't think this will happen.

What?!?!
I was poking fun at your hermanutics. You concluded that because Felix "trembled" that he was under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I was merely drawing a parallel with the fact that demons also tremble, but it doesn't mean they are under conviction.

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

Correct me if I’m wrong. So Matt 13, the “mysteries of the kingdom”, is the entire Word of God, including “the way to eternal life”, because “the seed”, is the entire Word of God.

What, specifically, leads you to believe this? Why does “the seed” necessarily refer to the entire Word of God?

I know you didn't use the word "entire". I'm just making an assumption here to emphasize what I think you're saying concerning what is included in the "mysteries of the kingdom".

 

[Skandelon]

4study,

I'm sorry I even put the phase "not aware of Good and Evil" in my post because it has caused you to ignore the crux of my arguement.

It's obvious from the text that Adam was not yet fully knowledgable of Good and Evil. Remember that Paul taught in Romas that it is the law that makes us aware of sin and without the law there is no sin? Adam had not broken the law, so he was not affected by sin (that is all I'm saying--move on)

The rule that God gives to Adam in the Garden ultimately created a means by which sin could enter the world. My arguement centered around the reason why God would make the law in the first place, thus allowing sin to reign.

I also mentioned verses that speak to the effect of the fall. Such as being "dead in our sins" and "slave to the sin nature." There are too many to list them. Do some research. You're wearing me out

[ January 22, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

[4study]

Samuel,

It's obvious from the text that Adam was not yet fully knowledgable of Good and Evil. Remember that Paul taught in Romas that it is the law that makes us aware of sin and without the law there is no sin? Adam had not broken the law, so he was not affected by sin (that is all I'm saying--move on)

I’ve been stopping the discussion at this point because it is pertinent to your belief about CHOICE and “the fallen state”. You say Adam “was not affected by sin” before the fall however, the extent of the “affect” after the fall is what I’m questioning by discussing what you believe about Adam’s abilities before the fall. I would argue you’re understanding of Romans 3 as well.

The rule that God gives to Adam in the Garden ultimately created a means by which sin could enter the world.

Where does it say this in scripture? I assume you may refer me to something like Romans 5:12. Yet even there, where does it say that God gave Adam a rule in the Garden that would ultimately create a means by which sin could enter the world? Does Romans 5:12 suggest that God created Adam and the Garden of Eden for this purpose? IMO, it does not.

I also mentioned verses that speak to the effect of the fall. Such as being "dead in our sins" and "slave to the sin nature."

I realize those are phrases from scripture, however, they are terms of which you are assuming I agree with you as to their definitions. I ask again, “dead” to what extent? And what does “sin nature” mean? These are things we usually take for granted and don’t think about very much. For me, it’s important not to gloss over anything in God’s Word. So it may surprise you that I have different understandings of the words “death” and “sin nature” than you do.

 

[Skandelon]

I’ve been stopping the discussion at this point because it is pertinent to your belief about CHOICE and “the fallen state”. You say Adam “was not affected by sin” before the fall however, the extent of the “affect” after the fall is what I’m questioning by discussing what you believe about Adam’s abilities before the fall. I would argue you’re understanding of Romans 3 as well.

WELL THEN ARGUE IT! (this is not a mad face but a frustrated face)

4study, this is fruitless. Your arguements have no substance. Merely stating, "I would argue you're understanding" is not an arguement. Forget it. I give up. God bless

 

[RomOne16]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The problem was with the human heart, depicted as the soil.

This is a sincere question, so please don't be offended.

Who made the soil?

 

[4study]

Samuel,

I chose not to say anything about Romans 3 because I don't think we're done with Gen. 3:5 yet. I thought going into another scripture would just confuse things.

I apologize for frustrating you but I guess I'm simply not going down the path you would like. You asked me to discuss scripture, so I responded to Gen. 3:5. I guess my comments frustrated you and now you believe this is "fruitless" discussion. I'm sorry you feel that way but to me, covering the details is not "fruitless".

Thanks for your time.

 

[Eric B]

Latreia stated:

No one is arguing for double predestination.
Thank you thouhg for acknowledging that Romans 9 deals with the election of individuals to salvation.
Truly it is about grace not race. But that proves the calvanist point, it does not diminish it.

I said "It's showing that salvation is on an individual basis, rather than national", but the context was that the ultimate point of the whole passage is about individual salvation, but some of the examples used are not.
Actually, I think there are at least two here who seem to believe in double predestination, I apologize if I am wrong. npetreley admittely has different views than some of you, and Samuel's paraphrase of Rom 9:22/23 definitely suggests that. [God had to have somebody to condemn to show His power]

In each case the soil produces a harvest completely in keeping with its character. There is only one soil that actually propduces the harvest. The other three are all ones that do not produce a harvest.

If it is only a dichotomy of "elect" and "non-elect", the differences of the other three would be meaningless-- you would only have two soils. This passage seems to suggest dispositions (as in the Acts 13:48 debate).

npetereley said:

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.

Either that, or you have Satan as bringing the non elect into existence, since being a "seed of satan" or "seed of God" are eternally preordained states. Didn't we all start out as children of Satan, and some crossed over?

As to the Matt.13 debate, just like John 6, Christ was not calling everyone yet, else, as was discussed in another thread, you have Christ shutting out people who would have apparently come to Him if He hadn't stopped them from coming by "blinding" them. Some of these same people may have repented later (as we see in Acts) so this too is not a decree of their souls to Hell.

 

[Skandelon]

Samuel's paraphrase of Rom 9:22/23 definitely suggests that. [God had to have somebody to condemn to show His power]

Boy, that's the last time I paraphase anything around here: Let me quote Paul vebatim this time: "What if God, choosing to SHOW HIS WRATH AND MAKE HIS POWER KNOWN, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom HE PREPARED IN ADVANCE FOR GLORY." Those are his exact words. Now, let's debate them.

They do not imply double predestination. Its says that God "bore with great patience" meaning that he allowed them "the objects of wrath" to continue on in their disobiedence. God's allowing people to follow their own natural sinful desire is not predestining them to hell, its allowing them to do what they want. That's what Arminians want isn't it, for God to allow people to make their own choices. That is exactly what He does for the objects of his wrath, He lets them make their own natural choices.

I am not a double predestinarian, neither was Paul. Please don't misquote me. Thanks
Sam

 

[4study]

Samuel (or anyone else caring to discuss Romans 9:22,23)

Where does one get the idea the "objects" are people? In the KJV, the word is "vessels". Does vessels = person? Does objects = person? What about the possibility of office instead? Can we think of an "object" or "vessel" being a position/office instead of a person? I realize Romans 9 uses the idea of person (i.e. Pharaoh), however, the context is, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel". Is Israel an office or a person?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by 4study:
Samuel (or anyone else caring to discuss Romans 9:22,23)

Where does one get the idea the "objects" are people? In the KJV, the word is "vessels". Does vessels = person? Does objects = person? What about the possibility of office instead? Can we think of an "object" or "vessel" being a position/office instead of a person? I realize Romans 9 uses the idea of person (i.e. Pharaoh), however, the context is, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel". Is Israel an office or a person?

Yeah, now that is an arguement. You told me how you interpret this passage in the light of your beliefs. Thank you!

Now, I can debate that.

Your interpretation of the word "objects" or "vessels" is flawed because Paul uses this same word to describe our (individual) condition (ie Eph. 2:1-8 as just one example).

Also, look at the context, he is speaking of clay pots or vessels and comparing us to them, like he does in other passages like 2 Cor. 4:7.

It does not make sense to say we were, "offices of wrath" And even if you were to use the word "office" the interpretation that I offered is not affected. There are still people who receive wrath and people who receive mercy. The purpose for this is the question at hand. Why do some receive mercy and others wrath. The answer is clear, to show God's glory.

The answer is not to give them a Free will choice resulting in Love as my previous arguement against the basic tenets of Arminianism stated.