Question for Arminians

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by humilis:
Really, to whom is it predestination? By definition, if we break this word down, is it not “pre” (before) “Destination” (arrival point)? Isn't the Word of God really telling us, that God knew our point of arrival before we did?
It is not predestination to God, it is NOW! Moreover, it is fact.

Great idea, except for one problem. The word predestination is noun form. The root form of the word in any language is always the verb form. The verb form of the word is predestine or predestinate, from "pre" (before) and "destine" or "destinate" (determine beforehand, assign for a specific end, direct toward a given destination). So, rather than being a reactionary word like your definition, it is a determining word.

More importantly, it comes from the Greek word prohoridzo, which means "to decide beforehand." It is not that God predestines because He knows what we will choose, it is that God determines beforehand what our destiny will be.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
And the strawmen they build...as above in Cal's post ...that he was looking for a verse that deals with man's sovereign will. Yet if you read over the many, many and agian I say many post I dare say you will not find one non-calvinist who has made such a statement.

Did I say that anyone had ever in a post on this board said "God is a perfect gentleman and won't force His way in on anyone?" No, I did not. However, it is not a strawman, because if you ever happen to listen to sermons from preachers that have come from Word of Life Bible Institute or Liberty University, you will hear that phrase, along with "Behold I stand at the door and knock" used often. I know because some of my best friends graduated from Word of Life, I have been there many times and I was enrolled to attend Liberty (after having been there many times in high school) before changing my mind.

HINT - A strawman is only a strawman if the situation doesn't really exist!

 

[Timtoolman]

Okay, My apology. I just assumed we were talking about the debate on this board. Which I have, and you too been involved in for sometime.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Apology accepted......by my own free-will

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
It is not that God predestines because He knows what we will choose, it is that God determines beforehand what our destiny will be.

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

According to your "daffynition", the above verse should read:

Ro 10:9 That .. thou ..... confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt ....... in thine heart .... God hath raised him from the dead, thou .... be saved.

"IF", "BELIEVE" "SHALT" are all "CONDITIONS" that must be "MET".. BEFORE salvation is granted, why the "IF".. "IF" it's predetermined??

Now, what is the definition of "IF", and don't give me a "Clinton" explanation of "IS".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
And "JUSTICE" demand that if one is "Offered" a "Pardon" on the conditions of "belief", the "ALL" should be offered a pardon under the "Same conditions", Belief.

That's actually equality and fairness, not justice (although some people use the terms interchangeably). Do we read the same Bible or not? Mine says...

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 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

How can you get anything else from that than the conclusion that God has prepared some people for destruction, and others for glory? That's not very fair, according to you, is it? Yet that's what the Bible says.

But let's go with your "theory" just for fun. Now all you have to do is prove from scripture that salvation is an "offer of pardon" that God communicates to all people who ever lived, live or will live, and you're home free on the issue of fairness.

Oops, never mind. What about the aborted babies? What about that poor kid in deepest Africa who never hears the Gospel? What about those people in various nations where missionaries are not allowed? Poor God. He has to rely on fallible man to make good on His "perfect fairness", and so God falls short once again. Again, it would be too kind to call this kind of God an underachiever. Incompetent is much more appropriate.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Now, what is the definition of "IF", and don't give me a "Clinton" explanation of "IS".

IF

1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that

If it rains tomorrow, our water deficit will be reduced. Does that mean water has the free will to rain or not rain?

If you are taller than 5 ft, you can ride the roller coaster. Does that mean that you have the free will to be taller than 5 ft?

"in the event that", "allowing that", "on the assumption that", and "on condition that" do not communicate the why behind anything. In the verse you quoted, the word "if" in "IF YOU CONFESS" simply says what happens on the condition that you confess. It doesn't address WHY one confesses, and another does not.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Do we read the same Bible or not? Mine says...

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 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.


How can you get anything else from that than the conclusion that God has prepared some people for destruction, and others for glory? That's not very fair, according to you, is it? Yet that's what the Bible says.

Is that what the bible says. or does it mean "something else"??

God's not "obligated" to save any, he can show mercy to whomever he choses, but whom did he "LOVE", the whole world, and send Jesus not to condem the world but that the world "MIGHT BE SAVED", so Jesus die for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD", that "WHOSOEVER" would believe, would be saved, and "WHOSOEVER WILL NOT" believe will be condemned.

SO, to understand that verse you must put it "IN CONTEXT" of scripture, scripture that you don't even know about.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

Now, would you like to tell me again "HOW" the "vessels" became "fit for destruction",

God's will or man refusing to "HEAR/OBEY" God????

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Is that what the bible says. or does it mean "something else"??

God's not "obligated" to save any, he can show mercy to whomever he choses, but whom did he "LOVE", the whole world, and send Jesus not to condem the world but that the world "MIGHT BE SAVED", so Jesus die for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD", that "WHOSOEVER" would believe, would be saved, and "WHOSOEVER WILL NOT" believe will be condemned.

SO, to understand that verse you must put it "IN CONTEXT" of scripture, scripture that you don't even know about.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

You're still attributing meaning to "IF" and "WHOSOEVER" that these words do not contain by themselves. "IF THAT NATION TURN FROM THEIR EVIL" is no different than the other IFs in the Bible. It tells you what will happen IF the nation turns from evil. It doesn't tell you why they might turn from evil.

All you've done now is drudge up yet another free willer word. "WHOSOEVER" does not MEAN it is open to everyone. It simply tells you that WHOSOEVER BELIEVES shall not perish. It doesn't tell you WHY one believes and another does not. It just tells you what happens to those who believe. There's no free will in "WHOSOEVER". There's no election in "WHOSOEVER". You have to find free will or election in other parts of the Bible.

I even started a whole thread about this, so it's pointless to do it all over again.

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Now, would you like to tell me again "HOW" the "vessels" became "fit for destruction",

God's will or man refusing to "HEAR/OBEY" God????

We all became fit for destruction because of the fall. Being fit for destruction (deserving of it) and being prepared for destruction are two different things.

Some of the vessels in Romans 9 are prepared for destruction. You can't get around that by quoting a different text about vessels with a DIFFERENT context.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by npetreley:

Some of the vessels in Romans 9 are prepared for destruction. You can't get around that by quoting a different text about vessels with a DIFFERENT context.

HELL IS HELL, for Jew/Gentile, and "ALL" go there for the same reason, and "ALL" escape for the same reason.

God's plan of salvation hasn't "CHANGED" from the OT to the NT, it's still by a person having "FAITH" in God/Jesus, just as Abraham's "FAITH" was counted to him as righteousness,

And "CONDEMNATION" is still for the same reason, "UNBELIEF".

Calvin's doctrine is as ignorant of the OT as the Jews are of the NT, we both know where that leads.

 

[Rhetorician]

To all who have an ear:

Has anyone here read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or entered into the debate/discussion that Luther was having with Erasmus?

It seems to me if we were all a lot more widely read that we would not have to hash out all of the old problems that had been argued before. Or, at least we would have some new "grist for the mill" instead of regrinding the old corn meal into fresh powder.

sdg!

rd

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
To all who have an ear:

Has anyone here read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or entered into the debate/discussion that Luther was having with Erasmus?

It seems to me if we were all a lot more widely read that we would not have to hash out all of the old problems that had been argued before. Or, at least we would have some new "grist for the mill" instead of regrinding the old corn meal into fresh powder.

sdg!

rd

Wouldn't it be better to read "God's word" with the "Holy Ghost" as "teacher/guide", than attempting to interpret "God's word" by "man's writing", isn't that the problem now???

Understand one thing, "ALL OF US" are going to give an account of "every idle word", and the Ghost absolutely will not bear witness to "words/doctrine" it didn't teach.

And I'm afraid many people are going to have "egg" on their face when the "TRUTH" is revealed.

As you suggested, most look to man for advise/instructions and very few turn to the Bible/Holy Ghost for guidance,

but the "instructor" (God/man) of every idle word will be revealed, but few consider, or even care, enough to worry about that.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
To all who have an ear:

Has anyone here read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or entered into the debate/discussion that Luther was having with Erasmus?

It seems to me if we were all a lot more widely read that we would not have to hash out all of the old problems that had been argued before. Or, at least we would have some new "grist for the mill" instead of regrinding the old corn meal into fresh powder.

sdg!

rd

I agree. Luther used scripture to refute what Erasmus said, and Erasmus used all the same fleshly philosophical arguments that people are making today. In fact, the book on the sovereignty of God (I can't remember the name of the book - maybe it's "The Sovereignty of God" - grin)) by AW Pink addresses (again, with scripture) every single argument you read on these boards, including all the ridiculous statements about "if", "whosoever", etc.

Obviously, people have been using these fleshly arguments for hundreds of years. And, if Jesus doesn't return first, they'll probably use them for hundreds more.

 

[webdog]

Herein lies the difference between calvinism and non calvinism...

Rhetorician: Has anyone here read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or entered into the debate/discussion that Luther was having with Erasmus?

It seems to me if we were all a lot more widely read that we would not have to hash out all of the old problems that had been argued before.

Npetreley: I agree.

Me4him: Wouldn't it be better to read "God's word" with the "Holy Ghost" as "teacher/guide", than attempting to interpret "God's word" by "man's writing", isn't that the problem now???

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Wouldn't it be better to read "God's word" with the "Holy Ghost" as "teacher/guide", than attempting to interpret "God's word" by "man's writing", isn't that the problem now???

Are you suggesting that you don't listen to preachers or ever read a book to see what saints for the last 2,000 years have thought about the text?

I'm glad that I'm not your pastor, and I hope not everyone in your church thinks this way. Knowing that the sheep put in your care don't want to hear what you think a particular passage means because they can use the Holy Ghost as a "teacher/guide" must be very discouraging to him.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by webdog:
Herein lies the difference between calvinism and non calvinism...

Rhetorician: Has anyone here read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or entered into the debate/discussion that Luther was having with Erasmus?

It seems to me if we were all a lot more widely read that we would not have to hash out all of the old problems that had been argued before.

Npetreley: I agree.

Me4him: Wouldn't it be better to read "God's word" with the "Holy Ghost" as "teacher/guide", than attempting to interpret "God's word" by "man's writing", isn't that the problem now???

I agree. It seems that Calvinists know that their interpretations of Scripture can stand up under scrutiny while non-Calvinists apparently believe that theirs cannot. Also, Calvinists know that the Holy Spirit can teach others, while it would appear that non-Calvinists do not know that.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by webdog:
Herein lies the difference between calvinism and non calvinism...

Rhetorician: Has anyone here read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or entered into the debate/discussion that Luther was having with Erasmus?

It seems to me if we were all a lot more widely read that we would not have to hash out all of the old problems that had been argued before.

Npetreley: I agree.

Me4him: Wouldn't it be better to read "God's word" with the "Holy Ghost" as "teacher/guide", than attempting to interpret "God's word" by "man's writing", isn't that the problem now???

You lost me. Was there a point in here somewhere?

For the record, I drew my conclusions about election from the Bible. THEN I read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. It's a great book. Martin Luther considered it his best work, and I agree. Isn't it a bit ironic that people would rail against reading a book by the person who coined the phrase Sola Scriptura (according to my understanding of history, which is admittedly incomplete)? If Martin Luther meant by Sola Scriptura "Don't read anything else", then why would he have written anything at all? I think the point of Sola Scriptura was "All truth is measured by scripture, not man's opinions". That's why Bondage of the Will is such an amazingly scriptural book.

I've also read commentaries that I do not agree with, I believe because the Holy Spirit kept me aware of how the book was contradicting God's word. Or don't you know that the Holy Spirit guides your understanding even when you read things other than the Bible?

The Bible is the benchmark against which all other works can be measured, but that doesn't mean you can't learn a thing or two from books other than the Bible. However, if you're going to read such books, I recommend those by authors who RELY ON THE BIBLE to make their points. Bondage of the Will is a great example.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Herein lies the difference between calvinism and non calvinism...

Rhetorician: Has anyone here read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or entered into the debate/discussion that Luther was having with Erasmus?

It seems to me if we were all a lot more widely read that we would not have to hash out all of the old problems that had been argued before.

Npetreley: I agree.

Me4him: Wouldn't it be better to read "God's word" with the "Holy Ghost" as "teacher/guide", than attempting to interpret "God's word" by "man's writing", isn't that the problem now???

I agree. It seems that Calvinists know that their interpretations of Scripture can stand up under scrutiny while non-Calvinists apparently believe that theirs cannot. Also, Calvinists know that the Holy Spirit can teach others, while it would appear that non-Calvinists do not know that. </font>[/QUOTE]So you agree? Man needs to read MORE teaching from men, and less discernment from the Holy Spirit who indwells ALL believers?

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by webdog:
Man needs to read MORE teaching from men, and less discernment from the Holy Spirit who indwells ALL believers?

Did any of us say this? I think, if you look at all of our posts over the last couple of weeks, that we have a very high esteem of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit. Our point is that the Holy Spirit uses gifted men to teach His Word (Eph. 4). We ignore what those men have said throughout church history to our own peril.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by webdog:
So you agree? Man needs to read MORE teaching from men, and less discernment from the Holy Spirit who indwells ALL believers?

I agreed with you about the difference being highlighed. Is this what you said? No, this is not what you said, and of course I do not agree with this.

We all need more discernment from the Holy Spirit. One way we get that is by reading what the Holy Spirit has taught believers of the past.