Nuts For Arminians To Crack

[utilyan]

Sin nature is not an excuse to sin, it is a recognition that we need the Grace of God FROM FIRST TO LAST. It is a recognition that without Christ we are without strength, without hope, without life. Salvation changes all that though

Sin is UN-NATURAL.

Its a cowardly excuse and a insult to God. Everyone is commanded not to sin.

There is absolutely no Spiritual or Physical mechanic that is the cause for your sinning, It is solely your fault.

1 Corinthians 10

13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

 

[glad4mercy]

Sin is UN-NATURAL.

Its a cowardly excuse and a insult to God. Everyone is commanded not to sin.

There is absolutely no Spiritual or Physical mechanic that is the cause for your sinning, It is solely your fault.

1 Corinthians 10

13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

1 Corinthians 10:13 was written to Christians, not people who still walk after the flesh. So yes, Christian's have been set free from the dominion and power of sin. Not so with those in the flesh.

As to the rest, would you please give a brief exegesis of Romans 7:20-24. Don't tell me what it doesn't say, give a brief summary of what it does say.

This passage shows that there is a principle (sin in the flesh)that brings a person into captivity UNTIL its power is BROKEN! It's power can only be broken by the victory Jesus won at the cross and by His Life in us.

Note: I am not saying sin is not a persons fault. God has provided salvation from the power of sin, but that fact does not mean that the power of sin over fallen, unregenerate man does not exist. (After all, sin nature or if you prefer FALLENNESS, is referring to the inability of the UNREGENERATE, and is not meant to give believers an excuse to sin, that's a straw man.)

The fact is, I don't have to sin because sins power is broken, NOT because there is no such thing as a FALLEN NATURE.

Are you actually denying the FALL of man in Adam?

 

[atpollard]

1. Does God love all sinners?

Romans 9:13 NASB Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Romans 9:13 NASB Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

The Greek verb used here, μισέω, is does so with the same way when Jesus uses it in Luke 14:26, where it is clear that He is not saying that we should "detest" our family, which He taught against, but, that our "love" for Him should be greater than for anyone else. See John 21:15-17 to understand this better. So μισέω is used as "love less", as the NT Greek lexicons inform us

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I would not call the truth as an attack.

The YOU in the verse quoted does NOT refer to ALL humans.It is very important to notice who the subject is when you read.

13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

what are you referring to here?

 

[1689Dave]

This is from a little booklet written by Elder J. B. Hardy 1837 -1913 and this particular one is on free agency... Comments?... Brother Glen

If we are saved by our free will, is it not a fact that the only difference between the saved and the lost is that the saved made a better use of their will?

The will is free only to follow the reasons why we choose what we will. But we are not free to will the reasons. Whosoever will may come, but it is God who provides the reasons why we come.

 

[percho]

You did not just try to use that verse to say that belief is something God gives you, please tell me that is not what you were doing with that verse.

I believe God translated Paul from unbelief unto belief.

 

[glad4mercy]

Romans 9:13 NASB Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

but hat

I believe God translated Paul from unbelief unto belief.

Here is something for those who argue that the drawing is the preaching of the gospel only. The people in John 6 heard the gospel straight from Jesus' lips, but most did not come. Jesus explained this by saying that no one is able to come unless drawn. This is in explanation to why THEY weren't coming. Even though they heard the Gospel, they were not drawn to come.

Part of the reason was a judicial hardening spoken of by the prophet Isaiah and the apostle Paul. We in this modern day need to take heed to what we hear as well, for we can fall under this judgement as well. Those who harden their hearts will be hardened.

This is one reason John Baptist came first- to prepare the people for the Messiah and the Gospel. Hearts must be changed, prepared, softened, opened, whatever verb you want to use to hear and believe the Gospel. You do not plant without a plow. The Word is the seed and the Spirit Holy is the plow.

When the Gospel is preached, God draws whom He will when He Wills. This is why I said that God draws all men, but does not draw all men at all times. God draws them when He Will. This is why the passage "today is the day of salvation. When God calls, we need to come, because we may or MAY NOT receive another opportunity.

 

[atpollard]

but hat

Brilliant exegesis!
I guess God loved Esau.

 

[glad4mercy]

Brilliant exegesis!
I guess God loved Esau.

The but hat was part of a post that I started. "but that (missed the t) means God chose Jacob over Esau, not that God hated Esau the way we normally define hate" and then cite the scriptures where the word is used that way. I saw that Saved By Grace answered you aptly and well in post 84.

I can see it looks like I am calling you a name. but that was not the intention. I started to reply to you, shelved it because I was busy, and I replied to something else, but somehow it got added on to that partial post. Sorry for the typo.

Saved By Grace' answer in post 84 was basically what I was going to say, but he worded it better than I would have...

No I was not calling you a but hat. It's funny how typos and computer glitches create sillies sometimes.

 

[tyndale1946]

The but hat was part of a post that I started. "but that (missed the t) means God chose Jacob over Esau, not that God hated Esau the way we normally define hate" and then cite the scriptures where the word is used that way. I saw that Saved By Grace answered you aptly and well in post 84.

I can see it looks like I am calling you a name. but that was not the intention. I started to reply to you, shelved it because I was busy, and I replied to something else, but somehow it got added on to that partial post. Sorry for the typo.

Saved By Grace' answer in post 84 was basically what I was going to say, but he worded it better than I would have...

No I was not calling you a but hat. It's funny how typos and computer glitches create sillies sometimes.

How would you know the mind of God?... If God loves us with an everlasting love, would not his hatred be everlasting also?... Is Gods love and hatred conditional?... What is the condition?... I believe what the scripture say and don't put my human rationalization in it... Yeah hath God said!?... Did God really say that?... Surely that scripture doesn't mean what it says?... I suggest you read this one... God is not concerned with our human opinions, only his truth... Brother Glen

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[glad4mercy]

How would you know the mind of God?... If God loves us with an everlasting love, would not his hatred be everlasting also?... Is Gods love and hatred conditional?... What is the condition?... I believe what the scripture say and don't put my human rationalization in it... Yeah hath God said!?... Did God really say that?... Surely that scripture doesn't mean what it says?... I suggest you read this one... God is not concerned with our human opinions, only his truth... Brother Glen

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

How do I know the mind of God? I only know what is revealed IN SCRIPTURE the same as you. Are you saying we cannot know what the Scripture reveals? The Spirit reveals the truth of SCRIPTURE through illumination

Since you translate the text as unconditional hate, then are we to hate father and mother, brother and sister too? Because the scriptures also says to hate them with the same word used to describe God to Esau.

Interpreting scripture with scripture and using hermeneutics is not human rationalization. Maybe you should take a closer look at that word "hate" in the original

Go back and read Saved by Grace post 84. See, he used sound Hermeneutical principles, like allowing scripture to interpret scripture. I don't see any hermeneutical basis for your interpretation.

I could use God's ways are higher than our ways to try to prove almost anything. You need more than that.

God is not interested in opinions, but truth. But if YOU are right, unless you hate your mother and father in the way hate is normally defined in English, you cannot be His disciple. So how do I honor my parents if I hate them

 

[glad4mercy]

How do I know the mind of God? I only know what is revealed IN SCRIPTURE the same as you. Are you saying we cannot know what the Scripture reveals? The Spirit reveals the truth of SCRIPTURE through illumination

Since you translate the text as unconditional hate, then are we to hate father and mother, brother and sister too? Because the scriptures also says to hate them with the same word used to describe God to Esau.

Interpreting scripture with scripture and using hermeneutics is not human rationalization. Maybe you should take a closer look at that word "hate" in the original

Go back and read Saved by Grace post 84. See, he used sound Hermeneutical principles, like allowing scripture to interpret scripture. I don't see any hermeneutical basis for your interpretation.

I could use God's ways are higher than our ways to try to prove almost anything. You need more than that.

God is not interested in opinions, but truth. But if YOU are right, unless you hate your mother and father in the way hate is normally defined in English, you cannot be His disciple. So how do I honor my parents if I hate them

And as far as the LORD laying Edom waste, Obadiah tells us why. Not because of unconditional hate, but because of JUST PUNISHMENT.

Sound hermeneutics. Scripture interprets scripture

 

[glad4mercy]

what are you referring to here?

Looks like a couple posts got deleted. Utilyan quotes 1 Cor. 10:13 as an argument against sin nature/ human inability and I mentioned that the verse is only a promise to Christians, not to unregenerate people in the flesh. It looks like someone took it as me attacking Utiliyan, which it wasn't I was speaking in general.

Robert William explained what I meant

I think this is what happened, but can't know for sure because I do not know how many posts got deleted. It is clear some did, because Mr Williams post is gone

 

[glad4mercy]

How do I know the mind of God? I only know what is revealed IN SCRIPTURE the same as you. Are you saying we cannot know what the Scripture reveals? The Spirit reveals the truth of SCRIPTURE through illumination

Since you translate the text as unconditional hate, then are we to hate father and mother, brother and sister too? Because the scriptures also says to hate them with the same word used to describe God to Esau.

Interpreting scripture with scripture and using hermeneutics is not human rationalization. Maybe you should take a closer look at that word "hate" in the original

Go back and read Saved by Grace post 84. See, he used sound Hermeneutical principles, like allowing scripture to interpret scripture. I don't see any hermeneutical basis for your interpretation.

I could use God's ways are higher than our ways to try to prove almost anything. You need more than that.

God is not interested in opinions, but truth. But if YOU are right, unless you hate your mother and father in the way hate is normally defined in English, you cannot be His disciple. So how do I honor my parents if I hate them

That is, if I hate them in the way you are defining it.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

How would you know the mind of God?... If God loves us with an everlasting love, would not his hatred be everlasting also?... Is Gods love and hatred conditional?... What is the condition?... I believe what the scripture say and don't put my human rationalization in it... Yeah hath God said!?... Did God really say that?... Surely that scripture doesn't mean what it says?... I suggest you read this one... God is not concerned with our human opinions, only his truth... Brother Glen

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It is interesting that the Calvinist/Reformed, who love to counter the GREAT LOVE that the God of the Bible has for the entire human race, by always appealing to Romans 9:13, where Paul is quoting Malachi 1:1-2, says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I have hated". Their folly in using this verse is clear from the fact, that this is NOT speaking in any form about God's "election to salvation", but rather, as Paul himself says, "God' purpose in choice might stand...the older will SERVE the younger" (verses 11-12). That is IT!

How many of these who misuse Romans 9 for their purposes, ever refer to Psalm 106:40? This verses in context, is about God and HIS PEOPLE the children of Israel, who in OT times, was His "elect", and "the apple of His eye", whom He loved more than any other nation. Yet, we read in this verse:

"Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against His people, insomuch that he abhorred His own inheritance"

Here we have the Hebrew verb תַּעָב, used, which the KJV has rightly translated "abhorred", and is also used for "detest, loathe, an abomination". It is a much stronger word,than the Hebrew verb שָׂנֵא‎, used in Malachi regarding Esau, which Paul quotes.

If God's "loathing and detesting" of the children of Israel, is "everlasting", then how could John 3:16 say that God SO LOVES the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE? which must also include the the children of Israel, whom Jesus came to save in the first place. Surely, if this "loathing and detesting" of the children of Israel, was "everlasting", then God would be finished with them, and there is NO way that they could ever be saved.

This is faulty reasoning that is not based on the solid Word of Almighty God, but the warped theological system of some group!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Brilliant exegesis!
I guess God loved Esau.

you guessed right! Because Jesus, God Incarnate also LOVED Judas! believe thou this?

 

[atpollard]

you guessed right! Because Jesus, God Incarnate also LOVED Judas! believe thou this?

Honestly, who God chooses to love or hate seems no more any of my business than who you choose to be friends with or hold a grudge against. Who am I to judge God?

I hold the same feelings towards 'Limited Atonement'. It is an interesting theological question, but ultimately that is God's decision to make and He has no reason to seek my opinion on whose sins he should carry to the Cross or what mechanism God uses to balance His Justice and His Grace.

Do you have scripture to support that Jesus loved Judas?
I have some doubts:

Matthew 26:24 NASB The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

John 17:12 NASB “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

 

[glad4mercy]

It is interesting that the Calvinist/Reformed, who love to counter the GREAT LOVE that the God of the Bible has for the entire human race, by always appealing to Romans 9:13, where Paul is quoting Malachi 1:1-2, says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I have hated". Their folly in using this verse is clear from the fact, that this is NOT speaking in any form about God's "election to salvation", but rather, as Paul himself says, "God' purpose in choice might stand...the older will SERVE the younger" (verses 11-12). That is IT!

How many of these who misuse Romans 9 for their purposes, ever refer to Psalm 106:40? This verses in context, is about God and HIS PEOPLE the children of Israel, who in OT times, was His "elect", and "the apple of His eye", whom He loved more than any other nation. Yet, we read in this verse:

"Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against His people, insomuch that he abhorred His own inheritance"

Here we have the Hebrew verb תַּעָב, used, which the KJV has rightly translated "abhorred", and is also used for "detest, loathe, an abomination". It is a much stronger word,than the Hebrew verb שָׂנֵא‎, used in Malachi regarding Esau, which Paul quotes.

If God's "loathing and detesting" of the children of Israel, is "everlasting", then how could John 3:16 say that God SO LOVES the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE? which must also include the the children of Israel, whom Jesus came to save in the first place. Surely, if this "loathing and detesting" of the children of Israel, was "everlasting", then God would be finished with them, and there is NO way that they could ever be saved.

This is faulty reasoning that is not based on the solid Word of Almighty God, but the warped theological system of some group!

I do not even think that all Calvinists interpret the word hate in the Romans 9 the way Tyndall 1946 interprets it.

To say that Edom was hated with an everlasting and unconditional hatred is almost like saying Edom was evil because God hated them and desired to punish them. I do not think that is what Malachi or Paul had in mind. And I bet many Calvinists would object to that notion as well

See, the way it is being explained is...

I could say God passes over some, but the reason is not because of some everlasting, unconditional hate. And the just condemnation of sinners is not due to a everlasting, unconditional hate either.

God punished them with a righteous judgement their sins deserved, not God hated them and because of His hate tore them down
This is why I believe in predestination, but not double predestination. A Man is saved by grace. Another Man perishes because of HIS OWN DOING.

 

[Yeshua1]

No when you sin it is your fault. You had perfect choice and opportunity to do exactly the right thing to do and specificly chose to rebel and sin against God.

YOUR FAULT,


Sin nature = excuses
Total deprave = excuses
Robot will = excuses

Time to REPENT and actually take responsibility instead of passing the buck on something God didn't do for you.

God is the only being with a full free will, and we ares till fully accountable for our actions and chooses!