isn't the ULTIMATE Source of salvation In Classic Arminianism Ourselves?

[preacher4truth]

Notice in my challenge to you I asked specifically to find verses in the epistles, not in the gospels or in the Book of Acts. The sermon by Paul in Acts 17 was to a definite group of people where he stands pointing to an unnamed idol and addresses it as the "Unknown God," something we wouldn't do today. It is a historical book, a transitional book, not known for its doctrine.

The verse in 2Pet.3:9 is an expression of God's general will. If true then all men would be saved. But we know that is not going to happen. Furthermore his will is not that they "repent," but that they "come to repentance," future tense. There is a difference. In the NT, repentance is always toward God. It is not from sin. If we push the concept of repenting from sins, we start pushing a works based salvation.

Yep. I know. This was in response to "where it is commanded to sinners anywhere in the Bible."

So my response is correct, and the passage is proof positive.

Also, in answer to my retro response to your initial request, my argument is solid. The epistles given show proof that repentance unto salvation is definitely in the epistles.

Chalk down two for me, friend.

Acts, being historical, doesn't diminished nor marginalize that fact that God commands all men to repent. Do you erase His command because it is "historical?"

It's a command for all times.

 

[DHK]

Yep. I know. This was in response to "where it is commanded to sinners anywhere in the Bible."

So my response is correct, and the passage is proof positive.

It is not commanded anywhere in the NT for the unsaved "to repent of all their sins." That is an unbiblical concept. And that is what I was referring to. Acts 17 does not address that.

 

[Havensdad]

Keep studying the passage. This was about the discipline of a particular member of the church. Had he not repented of his sin it may well have resulted in physical death. The word "salvation," in that context is referring to physical salvation. Believers don't have to be saved again and again and again.

Nope. Paul was not talking of the physical death of a person...that is REALLY reaching. He was speaking of saving faith, which starts with godly grief and repentance.

 

[Havensdad]

Not one of your verses are from the epistles, are they?
And the one in Hebrews has already been refuted.

You are attempting to form a dichotomy that does not exist. Paul and the apostles wrote those epistles, WHILE THE EVENTS IN ACTS WERE OCCURRING. All of the epistles, with a couple possible exceptions, were written before the end of the book of Acts occurred. It would be ridiculous in the extreme, for Paul to preach a message during the day, and then write a letter to a congregation in another town with completely different doctrine! That is an absurd contention!

And, no, the Hebrews verse has not been refuted...it has been marginalized and explained away, as are all passages which clearly refute ones pet doctrines.

 

[DHK]

Nope. Paul was not talking of the physical death of a person...that is REALLY reaching. He was speaking of saving faith, which starts with godly grief and repentance.

No he wasn't. He was speaking to the believers at Corinth. They were saved, saints in Christ. He is referring back to the one that was disciplined out of the church in 1Cor.5 and "was delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh." He had now repented, "with Godly sorrow." He was sorrowful over what he had done. If he had not been sorrowful it is likely that God would have taken his life.
He killed Annanias and Sapphira for much less than that.
He killed many more in 1Cor.11:30 for a sin lesser than that.
God was gracious to this man, and allowed him to live until he came to a place of repentance, and then granted him his "life" (salvation).

 

[Havensdad]

No he wasn't. He was speaking to the believers at Corinth. They were saved, saints in Christ. He is referring back to the one that was disciplined out of the church in 1Cor.5 and "was delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh." He had now repented, "with Godly sorrow." He was sorrowful over what he had done. If he had not been sorrowful it is likely that God would have taken his life.
He killed Annanias and Sapphira for much less than that.
He killed many more in 1Cor.11:30 for a sin lesser than that.
God was gracious to this man, and allowed him to live until he came to a place of repentance, and then granted him his "life" (salvation).

No, brother, they were not saved saints in Christ. They were a local congregation, just like we have today, which has some true Christians, and some false.

The man from 1 Corinthians 5 was "delivered to Satan" not to save him from Physical death, but to see him saved, spiritually. Look back at 1 Corinthians 5...

1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.


Paul is saying "look, it worked! He had Godly grief and his spirit was saved from the day of the Lord..

 

[Havensdad]

By the way, DHK, why was I thinking that you were reformed?

 

[DHK]

You are attempting to form a dichotomy that does not exist. Paul and the apostles wrote those epistles, WHILE THE EVENTS IN ACTS WERE OCCURRING. All of the epistles, with a couple possible exceptions, were written before the end of the book of Acts occurred. It would be ridiculous in the extreme, for Paul to preach a message during the day, and then write a letter to a congregation in another town with completely different doctrine! That is an absurd contention!

And, no, the Hebrews verse has not been refuted...it has been marginalized and explained away, as are all passages which clearly refute ones pet doctrines.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1)
--This verse says nothing about repentance necessary for salvation. So?

You need to look at facts. Every book in the Bible has a purpose.
The Book of Acts was not written to teach doctrine. It was to record history. It is the book of the Acts of the Apostles. It records their Acts. It is not so much concerned with their doctrine as it is with their acts or history. It is the second volume in a two part series written by Luke. Volume one is the Gospel of Luke. It also is a historical book, giving the history of the life of Christ.

The Book of Romans is a treatise on soteriology written to the believers at Rome. It covers almost every aspect of salvation. It is doctrinal as are all the epistles.
The short epistle to Philemon teaches on forgiveness.
The first epistle of John teaches on "assurance of salvation."
In 1Cor. the Corinthians had written to Paul with some questions or problems. Each chapter addresses a specific question or problem.
--I could go on, but the epistles are where we find doctrine that is being taught, not history being recorded.

 

[DHK]

No, brother, they were not saved saints in Christ. They were a local congregation, just like we have today, which has some true Christians, and some false.

Look in the first chapter and see how he addresses this epistle.

The man from 1 Corinthians 5 was "delivered to Satan" not to save him from Physical death, but to see him saved, spiritually. Look back at 1 Corinthians 5...

I do not argue that point. But I say that had he continued in sin it is likely that God would have severely punished him, probably by death. He did it before.

Paul is saying "look, it worked! He had Godly grief and his spirit was saved from the day of the Lord..

For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. (2 Corinthians 7:11)
The sorrow was collective. Were all the members unsaved?

 

[Havensdad]

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1)
--This verse says nothing about repentance necessary for salvation. So?

Yes it does. The principle doctrine of Christ, the foundation of ones relationship with Him, is repentance from dead works, and faith.

You need to look at facts. Every book in the Bible has a purpose.
The Book of Acts was not written to teach doctrine. It was to record history. It is the book of the Acts of the Apostles. It records their Acts. It is not so much concerned with their doctrine as it is with their acts or history. It is the second volume in a two part series written by Luke. Volume one is the Gospel of Luke. It also is a historical book, giving the history of the life of Christ.

The Book of Romans is a treatise on soteriology written to the believers at Rome. It covers almost every aspect of salvation. It is doctrinal as are all the epistles.
The short epistle to Philemon teaches on forgiveness.
The first epistle of John teaches on "assurance of salvation."
In 1Cor. the Corinthians had written to Paul with some questions or problems. Each chapter addresses a specific question or problem.
--I could go on, but the epistles are where we find doctrine that is being taught, not history being recorded.

YOU need to look at facts. The book of Acts is not just history. It is a narrative that helps us to understand the epistles which were being written at the same time the events were occurring. It is preposterous for you to claim, for example, that Paul did not preach repentance of sin, when that is exactly what he did preach.

Also, it shows how we should do things in light of the doctrine revealed in the Epistles. The Epistles say "This is what Paul believed and taught (as inspired by the Holy Spirit." The book of Acts says, "O.K., this is what that doctrine looks like."

To deny this is to create imaginary theological walls, inventing ones own doctrine and practicum as one sees fit. Paul believed and taught the gospel, in the book of Romans. Acts shows how that should demonstrate itself in our preaching.

 

[Havensdad]

Look in the first chapter and see how he addresses this epistle.

In a weaker way than the first. Yet in the first epistle, he makes it clear that at least one of the congregation was not saved.

I do not argue that point. But I say that had he continued in sin it is likely that God would have severely punished him, probably by death. He did it before.

But that is not the context here. The context here is being saved "in the day of the Lord."

For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. (2 Corinthians 7:11)
The sorrow was collective. Were all the members unsaved?

All of those who had "godly grief" in chapter 7, were saved. Those who had not repented (if there were any), were not. That was kinda Paul's whole point.

 

[preacher4truth]

It is not commanded anywhere in the NT for the unsaved "to repent of all their sins." That is an unbiblical concept. And that is what I was referring to. Acts 17 does not address that.

I see, we receive new rules as this progresses? Or, we answer, then you make up another diversion? Or, both?

Who said "all their sins" other than you? You just now added this new part. How interesting.

I'm just quoting God's command. How we react to the Word is up to us. The Scriptures deal with this also.

Acts 17 addresses man. That they are ALL commanded to repent. Wow, I wonder what of?

That you make new rules and stips as we go along is a reflection on you, not on Gods command for all to repent regarding salvation.

Nice try though. It sharpens my apologetic skills.[/B]

 

[preacher4truth]

In a weaker way than the first. Yet in the first epistle, he makes it clear that at least one of the congregation was not saved.



But that is not the context here. The context here is being saved "in the day of the Lord."



All of those who had "godly grief" in chapter 7, were saved. Those who had not repented (if there were any), were not. That was kinda Paul's whole point.

He's been shown plainly. He just cannot be wrong. That's the factor here, nothing else. Keep preaching the Word bro.

 

[DHK]

I see, we receive new rules as this progresses? Or, we answer, then you make up another diversion? Or, both?

Who said "all their sins" other than you? You just now added this new part. How interesting.

I'm just quoting God's command. How we react to the Word is up to us. The Scriptures deal with this also.

Acts 17 addresses man. That they are ALL commanded to repent. Wow, I wonder what of?

That you make new rules and stips as we go along is a reflection on you, not on Gods command for all to reapnt regarding salvation.

Nice try though. It sharpens my apologetic skills.[/B]

Alright. We need reading comprehension skills here.
Go back and read post #109
Here it is:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1693805&postcount=109

I will even help you a bit.
Here is part of what it says:

Can you show me a single verse in the Bible which commands a sinner to repent of his sins. This is the general invitation of a preacher, the altar call so to speak. It is his definition of repentance. It is totally unbiblical.

Now, since that is quite a few pages ago, I would expect you to keep up in the conversation.

 

[DHK]

He's been shown plainly. He just cannot be wrong. That's the factor here, nothing else. Keep preaching the Word bro.

Now that we are dealing with three different contexts: 1Cor.1; 1Cor.5; 2Cor.7, can you please refer me to what on earth you are talking about. You have referred to three different passages but seem to be referring to a part of one verse. Unless you give me the exact reference how do you expect me to comment on it?

 

[preacher4truth]

Now that we are dealing with three different contexts: 1Cor.1; 1Cor.5; 2Cor.7, can you please refer me to what on earth you are talking about. You have referred to three different passages but seem to be referring to a part of one verse. Unless you give me the exact reference how do you expect me to comment on it?

Alright. We need reading comprehension skills here.
Go back and read post #109 Here it is: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1693805&postcount=109
I will even help you a bit. Here is part of what it says: Now, since that is quite a few pages ago, I would expect you to keep up in the conversation.

You've been show plainly, to the extent you've started your emotional personal attacks, and reading comprehension nonsense which is always indicative of the one who resorts to this as losing.

You've been shown enough, it's never been up to me to show you anyhow.

- Blessings to you

 

[preacher4truth]

Alright. We need reading comprehension skills here.
Go back and read post #109
Here it is:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1693805&postcount=109

I will even help you a bit.
Here is part of what it says:


Can you show me a single verse in the Bible which commands a sinner to repent of his sins. This is the general invitation of a preacher, the altar call so to speak. It is his definition of repentance. It is totally unbiblical.
Now, since that is quite a few pages ago, I would expect you to keep up in the conversation.

I showed you the single verse. Acts 17:30

You saying this about the invitation of a preacher being unbiblical is on you. I have many good Christian friends and people who got saved under such "unbiblical" altar calls.

I showed you your single verse at your request. Deal with it.

Obviously anwering you concisely and directly is hard for you to take?

 

[Winman]

For some, the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism boils down to whether salvation is monergistic or synergistic. I believe the term “synergism” is not always accurately applied to the Arminian position. The word comes from the Greek synergos, which essentially means “working together”. While monergism (to work alone) may be an acceptable label for what Calvinists believe (God does all the work in salvation), synergism does not always rightly portray what Arminians have historically believed.

The word itself, when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe.

F. Leroy Forlines put it well when he said,

“I believe that saving faith is a gift of God in the sense that the Holy Spirit gives divine enablement without which faith would be impossible (John 6:44). The difference between the Calvinistic concept of faith and my concept of faith cannot be that theirs is monergistic and mine is synergistic. In both cases it is synergistic. Active participation in faith by the believer means it must be synergistic. Human response cannot be ruled out of faith. Justification and regeneration are monergistic. Each is an act of God, not man. Faith is a human act by divine enablement and therefore cannot be monergistic.” [The Quest For Truth, pg 160, emphasis his]

If faith were monergistic then it would not be the person believing, but God believing for the person. Faith is the genuine human response to God’s call, and the means by which we access His saving grace (Rom. 5:1, 2). It is still God’s grace that saves, but that grace must be received by faith, and the nature of faith is such that it can never be properly called a “work”.

Does this mean that man is the determiner of salvation and not God? Absolutely not. God has determined that those who believe in His Son shall be saved, and that determination is absolute and unchangeable (Jn. 3:16-18, 36). We simply determine whether or not we will meet the God ordained condition of faith.

I like what this fellow said, this is my understanding. Only God can save, only he has this power and ability. But as this fellow correctly says, we must believe. If faith were monegistic, it would indeed be God believeing for us and not ourselves.

 

[JesusFan]

I showed you the single verse. Acts 17:30

You saying this about the invitation of a preacher being unbiblical ius on you. I have many good Christian friends and people who got saved under such "unbiblical" altar calls.

I showed you your single verse at your request. Deal with it.

Obviously anwering you concisely and directly is hard for you to take?

Wonder why the Bible made such a big point on Peter showing godly repentance and turning back to Christ and showing he was saved contrasted with Judas having a world repentance that led to spiritual death.....

Why even mention and contrast if not relevant?

 

[DHK]

I showed you the single verse. Acts 17:30

You saying this about the invitation of a preacher being unbiblical is on you. I have many good Christian friends and people who got saved under such "unbiblical" altar calls.

I showed you your single verse at your request. Deal with it.

Obviously anwering you concisely and directly is hard for you to take?

Please read carefully. Show me a single verse in the NT where it commands an unsaved person to repent of all his sins.

There is no such command.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)

There is no need to redefine the word "repent" to your liking. It does not say "to repent of all your sins, and it never did.