Some arguments against Arminianism

[RLBosley]

Pt 2

No, faith is not a good work. You could be a compulsive liar, a thief, and a serial killer, but you could believe your mother's promise to come visit you in prison. You believe her because she is good, not that you are good. You believe her because she is trustworthy, not that you are trustworthy.

You are looking in the wrong direction. God said, "Look to me"

You've used this analogy of the mother visiting the prisoner before, and I showed you that it just doesn't work. It is not analogous to our spiritual state at all. But even if it were, do you really understand what you are saying? That it is because of our belief in God that he acts? Our will and decision is sovereign of the Creator if that is the case. That is not what scripture affirms.

But Calvinists do insist God does not elect according to foreseen faith, I showed a quote by John Piper himself.

Again, you can't or won't try to comprehend what I or anyone else says.

In response to your lie that Calvinists try to tell God what he can do and usurp his sovereignty, I said:

Then you can't read. Honestly if you even remotely think that's what any Calvinist says (the bolded) then you simply cannot understand basic English.

Please just read what is actually being said. That would make things go so much smoother.

God must be true to his own character, he must be just. God cannot lie, or steal, etc...

The only solution for sin was for God to send his son Jesus to die for us, and that if we would believe on him as he believed on his Father, then justification unto life is imputed us. (Romans 5:18-19)

I agree!

But if it is true (and it is) that God must be true to his own character, then how can you say that God sets aside his sovereignty in order to give his creation libertarian free will?

No, the grace that brings salvation has been revealed to all men, but some men will refuse to open their eyes and see it.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

So the salvific grace of God was apparent to men and women in China when Jesus walked the earth? What about the peoples in the Americas during the first century when the NT was being written, did the salvific grace of God appear to them as well?

No.

The best way to understand that verse I believe is that the grace of God has appeared to the whole world, not to Jews alone.

I agree that the Spirit calls, but he calls all men.

So all men will be saved? Remember, being called by the Spirit of God infallibly leads to salvation.

and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. - Rom 8:30 NASB

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely

If you want the water of life you can have it. Just come to Jesus and ask him for it like he told the Samaritan woman at the well.

Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water

Just ask.

Yep. But who asks? The elect.

You have to believe, that is God's rule. If you do not believe you will die in your sins.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

God made the rules, not me.

You again didn't deal with the issue. Only in a monergist system does the cross actually save anyone. In your view it only made men savable.

 

[steaver]

Yes God has chosen to save those who believe. How many times must i say it? THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. Calvinists and Arminians both believe God saves those who believe, so that clearly isn't the issue. The issue is ultimately how does one come to have this belief. Because they conjure it up in themselves, or because God opens their hearts and minds to receive the gospel?

Even that is not the issue, both believe God must first open the heart and mind to receive the gospel. The issue is whether or not after having been opened to see, does the person have a freewill to accept or reject the invitation.

 

[steaver]

But if it is true (and it is) that God must be true to his own character, then how can you say that God sets aside his sovereignty in order to give his creation libertarian free will?

Why do Calvinist insist that God giving a person freewill to make a decision is Him setting aside His sovereignty? Cannot God exercise His sovereignty by giving a declaration of choice? Choose this day whom ye shall serve?????? Does this strip God of sovereignty? It is God Himself who gave the right to choose within His sovereignty.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why do Calvinist insist that God giving a person freewill to make a decision is Him setting aside His sovereignty? Cannot God exercise His sovereignty by giving a declaration of choice? Choose this day whom ye shall serve?????? Does this strip God of sovereignty? It is God Himself who gave the right to choose within His sovereignty.

Why would he do that?

 

[Winman]

Why would he do that?

That's not the question, the question is why can't he do that?

If God wants to save those who freely and willingly choose to believe on Christ, and damn those who freely and willingly reject Christ, why can't God do that?

Who are you to tell God who he can save and who he can't?

 

[Winman]

This is a response to RLBosley. I do not want to address his whole post, much too long. But I will address certain points one at a time. Here I address 2 Thes 2:13 and what it is really saying. Are we chosen "to be saved" through the means of belief in the truth, or is this verse saying we are "chosen" through belief in the truth?

No it isn't. You do not understand what is being said here. I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems or if the KJV English trips you up or what, but this is again a simple grammar issue.

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. - 2Th 2:13 NASB

From the beginning, hearkening back to the language of Gen 1:1, since before creation, "God has chosen you" to/for salvation. This salvation is accomplished by being sanctified by the Spirit and having faith in the truth. The believer is chosen for salvation, and the means (Not the basis!) of that salvation is sanctification by the Spirit and belief of the truth. We see here a clear picture of God's election of individuals, the spirit regenerating (sanctifying) them and the sinner having faith, all culminating in the predestined salvation of the individual. This has absolutely nothing to do with foreseen faith. Not even close.

First of all, I use the KJB only, and it says we are chosen "to" salvation. But the word we should be concerned with is "through". Does this word point to the word chosen, or the word salvation? Understanding which word "through" points to gives the proper interpretation of this scripture.

If "through" points to "chosen", then this verse says belief of the truth is the cause, and being chosen or elect is the effect of believing.

If through points to "salvation", then this verse teaches that belief of the truth is the cause, being saved is the effect of believing.

Not being any expert on grammar, especially Greek grammar, all I can do is rely on those who are experts in this field. Actually finding an article that addresses this important point concerning this specific verse is difficult, but I believe I have found one, written by a Presbyterian minister. So, if there were any bias, it certainly would be toward the Calvinistic view of this verse and not the Arminian. But if I am reading correctly, this pastor says the opposite, he says we are "chosen" through belief of the truth. This supports my view that this verse is saying belief of the truth is the cause, and being chosen or elected is the effect of that faith.

Anyway, here is the article

Part 1

http://opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9902c.html

Part 2

http://opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9903e.html

Very simply though, this pastor's view is easily shown in this statement, which he makes several times in this article in various forms.

The God who chose the Thessalonians for salvation chose them through his appointed means. He chose them, says Paul, “through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth” (literally, “by sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”) (2 Thess. 2:13). What exactly are these two means, and how do they relate to each other?

So, this Presbyterian pastor certainly believed that being "chosen" (not saved) was through belief of the truth.

He also shows several charts that shows this is his view of interpretation.

Verse 13b:

1-God
2-chose
3-you
4-through sanctification and belief in the truth
5-for salvation

This is my evidence to support my interpretation of 2 Thes 2:13.

 

[Winman]

Note also the similarity between 1 Pet 1:2 and 2 The 2:13

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

2 The 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

There is no mention of being chosen "to salvation" in 1 Pet 1:2, it simply says we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father "through" sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

One cannot help but see the direct similarity to 2 The 2:13, in fact I believe they are saying the exact same thing, that we are chosen or elect "through" sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

The word obedience easily is synonymous with believing, in fact, believing the gospel is called "obeying the gospel"

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

So, I believe this is more support that 2 The 2:13 is teaching that we are chosen or elected through sanctification of the Spirit (God's part) and belief of the truth (our part).

And of course 1 Pet 2:1 also supports this choice was made before the foundation of the world according to God the Father's foreknowledge, him foreknowing who would believe on Jesus in time, and choosing these persons before the foundation of the world. This is the traditional Non-Cal/Arminian view of election.

 

[RLBosley]

Even that is not the issue, both believe God must first open the heart and mind to receive the gospel. The issue is whether or not after having been opened to see, does the person have a freewill to accept or reject the invitation.

Not exactly, as there are many Arminians, Winman here for example, who say that all we need is to be informed of the gospel. There is no revelation or opening of the heart or mind in that system.

I see what you are saying, and it is similar to the belief I held for a while, but it fails to account for the fact that a chronology like that is nowhere to be found in scripture. The opposite is seen in John 6 for example.

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." - Jhn 6:40 NASB

All those who behold the Son, i.e., those who have had their eyes and hearts opened to see and receive the gospel, have eternal life.

Why do Calvinist insist that God giving a person freewill to make a decision is Him setting aside His sovereignty? Cannot God exercise His sovereignty by giving a declaration of choice? Choose this day whom ye shall serve?????? Does this strip God of sovereignty? It is God Himself who gave the right to choose within His sovereignty.

So God is exercising his sovereignty by setting aside his sovereignty?

 

[convicted1]

Well, if you think I will ever be a Calvinist you are in for a disappointment.

I used to say the same thing. God won out....

 

[Winman]

Not exactly, as there are many Arminians, Winman here for example, who say that all we need is to be informed of the gospel. There is no revelation or opening of the heart or mind in that system.

That is not true, there must be conviction, and scripture says the Holy Spirit will convict. But a person does not have to be regenerated to be convicted by the word of God.

Jhn 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

What did these men hear? The word of God. Were they convicted? YES. Were they regenerated? NO. These were men who were trying to tempt Jesus so they could accuse him. They were as lost as a turkey on Thanksgiving, yet they were convicted by the word of God. They did not have to be regenerated to understand Jesus's words and be convicted by them.

I see what you are saying, and it is similar to the belief I held for a while, but it fails to account for the fact that a chronology like that is nowhere to be found in scripture. The opposite is seen in John 6 for example.

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." - Jhn 6:40 NASB

All those who behold the Son, i.e., those who have had their eyes and hearts opened to see and receive the gospel, have eternal life.

The scriptures put the responsibility of learning on the sinner.

Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

Jesus told his disciples that to those that pay attention and hear, MORE shall be given them.

Often, the disciples did not understand Jesus's parables any more than the rest of the people did. What was the difference? The disciples did not give up, but sought to understand, they asked Jesus what the parables meant.

Mat 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

The disciples understood the difficult sayings of Jesus because they had faith. They knew his words were important to know and understand and so they came to him and asked him to explain them. This is why their understanding was greater than others.

So God is exercising his sovereignty by setting aside his sovereignty?

If God wants to save those that willingly and freely believe, and damn those who willingly and freely reject Jesus, why can't he?? Who are you to tell God what his criteria for saving someone must be??

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Seems pretty clear that God has already determined who he will save and who he will not.

It is you Calvinists that are resisting the clear teaching of scripture.

 

[Winman]

I used to say the same thing. God won out....

No, you were always floating around, I could go back and find old posts and prove it if I had to.

You ALWAYS believed faith was a gift the way Calvinists do. You never believed that men have the innate ability to believe. I always noticed that, and that was your Achilles heel.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2055386&postcount=93

There is an Total Inability taught in scripture, there really is. But it is not that men are unable to believe, it is that men are IGNORANT. No man is born knowing the gospel, and therefore no man is born able to believe it. You can't believe what you do not know. I have shown this a hundred times, but this fact is clearly revealed in Romans 10;

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Paul is directly addressing man's ability to believe on Jesus for salvation in this verse.

Does Paul ask how any man can believe unless he is regenerated? NOPE, Paul does not say a word like that here or anywhere else in all the Bible.

Does Paul ask how any man can believe on Jesus unless he has heard of Jesus? YES. And then Paul asks how they can HEAR without a preacher.

Did Paul ask how they can hear unless they be regenerated? NO!

No, Paul simply implies that all men need to believe on Jesus is to hear of him. Men are ignorant, they are not born knowing the gospel. But as soon as a gospel preacher comes to town and tells them how Jesus died for their sins, and they can be forgiven if they will trust him, now they are enabled to either choose to trust Jesus or not.

And that is how you got saved, and I got saved, and everybody who is saved got saved. Somebody had to tell them the gospel, and they had to think on it, and finally get down on their knees and ask Jesus to save them.

There is not a word to support you must be regenerated to believe the gospel. You can't show it Willis, because no such scripture exists.

Why do you believe something that is not in the Bible Willis?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

If God bases his election of sinners on foreseen faith, then God is not making a genuine choice but is simply reacting to his creation. In this system, the creature is freer than the creator, which is contrary to both scripture and logic. Taken to its extreme conclusion, this would mean that God looks forward in time to learn what his creation will do, thus overturning God’s omniscience. This is why some, James White for example, have said the only consistent Arminian is an Open Theist.

If I put a fish in a bowl, that it still has free will to swim within that bowl, I place the restrictions though.. in this system does this mean that the fish is more in control than I am?

 

[RLBosley]

This is a response to RLBosley. I do not want to address his whole post, much too long. But I will address certain points one at a time. Here I address 2 Thes 2:13 and what it is really saying. Are we chosen "to be saved" through the means of belief in the truth, or is this verse saying we are "chosen" through belief in the truth?

Yeah it got a bit long. I'll try to keep it short this time.

First of all, I use the KJB only, and it says we are chosen "to" salvation. But the word we should be concerned with is "through". Does this word point to the word chosen, or the word salvation? Understanding which word "through" points to gives the proper interpretation of this scripture.

You are more than free to use the KJV, it served the English speaking people of God well for centuries. I grew up with it and still use it as well.

I hope you do know that saying we are chosen to salvation and for salvation is the same thing. NKJV (also based on the TR) says "chose you for salvation."

The English translations, 400 years old or modern mostly agree to what is being said here. I tend to look at 4 translations when I examine scripture:

KJV - God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
ESV - God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (Apparently there is a textual variant in the manuscripts regarding "from the beginning" v "firstfruits")
NASB - God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
HCSB - from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

All 4 are virtually identical. So this isn't a translation issue.

But you are correct, "through" is the word that is of most importance for our purpose.

If "through" points to "chosen", then this verse says belief of the truth is the cause, and being chosen or elect is the effect of believing.

If through points to "salvation", then this verse teaches that belief of the truth is the cause, being saved is the effect of believing.

Granted. Not quite the way I would put it, but sufficient.

Not being any expert on grammar, especially Greek grammar, all I can do is rely on those who are experts in this field. Actually finding an article that addresses this important point concerning this specific verse is difficult, but I believe I have found one, written by a Presbyterian minister. So, if there were any bias, it certainly would be toward the Calvinistic view of this verse and not the Arminian. But if I am reading correctly, this pastor says the opposite, he says we are "chosen" through belief of the truth. This supports my view that this verse is saying belief of the truth is the cause, and being chosen or elected is the effect of that faith.


Anyway, here is the article

Part 1

http://opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9902c.html

Part 2

http://opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9903e.html

Very simply though, this pastor's view is easily shown in this statement, which he makes several times in this article in various forms.


So, this Presbyterian pastor certainly believed that being "chosen" (not saved) was through belief of the truth.

He also shows several charts that shows this is his view of interpretation.

Verse 13b:

1-God
2-chose
3-you
4-through sanctification and belief in the truth
5-for salvation

This is my evidence to support my interpretation of 2 Thes 2:13.

Read the article(s). I believe you misrepresent Mr. Smith.

Yes the singular quote you pulled out of the article seems to support your view, however the entire article is contrary to your belief. I think Mr. Smith did not clearly covey what he meant in that one sentence, and you capitalized on it. Look at more of what he says regarding the passage, just a few lines below what you quoted:

The phrase “sanctification of the Spirit” in this context, then, refers to that first work of the Spirit by which he gives new life to those who are dead in trespasses and sins. The God who chose the Thessalonians for salvation achieved that end by sending his Holy Spirit to them and making them alive together with Christ. Before this took place, they were no different from “those who are perishing” (2 Thess. 2:10). However, as a result of the Spirit's work, they were able to believe the truth.

So, although the two means are joined together, it appears that the former logically precedes the latter. That is, “sanctification” is the necessary preparation for “belief in the truth.” The first refers to God's work within the human heart, while the second refers to the response that proceeds from the human heart. The wider biblical teaching is confirmed by this text: without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, there could not be belief in the truth.

Towards the end of the article;

What else could Paul mean when, having just mentioned the awful destiny of “those who are perishing,” he says to the believers, “We ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved” (2 Thess. 2:13)? If this does not refer to God's sovereignty in election, then what a bizarre choice of words he has made to remind them that they unlike their doomed fellows chose God!

On the first page, preceding your quote:

We could go on. Did God not choose Samson, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, the apostle Paul, and even his own dear Son, all before their birth? Did he not choose David and his house to rule over Israel? Does he not choose either to install pagan kings on their thrones or to remove them from power? Did our Lord Jesus not choose his twelve from among his disciples, revealing only to them what was hidden from the rest?

So when Paul writes about election in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15, he is in step with the rest of Holy Scripture. “God chose you” is not a strange, mysterious phrase that should leave us puzzled or confused. Rather, it is simply one more instance in which God expresses his sovereignty. It fits neatly into place with all the other expressions of his sovereignty. Here God has treated one group as they deserve to be treated, but he has sovereignly chosen to be merciful to the other group

Even the article title:

The Bible Teaches the Doctrine of Election

Mr. Smith clearly lays out exactly what I was telling you. That God sovereignly and freely chose them (and us!) for salvation, and the means by which he accomplishes that salvation is the sanctifying power of the Spirit and our resulting belief. To again quote Mr. Smith, "The God who chose the Thessalonians for salvation achieved that end by sending his Holy Spirit to them and making them alive together with Christ."

Also, I give you Matthew Henry. Granted he is a Calvinist:

1. To the stability of the election of grace, v. 13. Therefore were they beloved of the Lord, because God had chosen them from the beginning. He had loved them with an everlasting love. Concerning this election of God we may observe, (1.) The eternal date of it-it is from the beginning; not the beginning of the gospel, but the beginning of the world, before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:4. Then, (2.) The end to which they were chosen-salvation, complete and eternal salvation from sin and misery, and the full fruition of all good. (3.) The means in order to obtaining this end-sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth. The decree of election therefore connects the end and the means, and these must not be separated. We are not the elected of God because we were holy, but that we might be holy.

 

[RLBosley]

Note also the similarity between 1 Pet 1:2 and 2 The 2:13

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

2 The 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

There is no mention of being chosen "to salvation" in 1 Pet 1:2, it simply says we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father "through" sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

One cannot help but see the direct similarity to 2 The 2:13, in fact I believe they are saying the exact same thing, that we are chosen or elect "through" sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

The word obedience easily is synonymous with believing, in fact, believing the gospel is called "obeying the gospel"

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

So, I believe this is more support that 2 The 2:13 is teaching that we are chosen or elected through sanctification of the Spirit (God's part) and belief of the truth (our part).

And of course 1 Pet 2:1 also supports this choice was made before the foundation of the world according to God the Father's foreknowledge, him foreknowing who would believe on Jesus in time, and choosing these persons before the foundation of the world. This is the traditional Non-Cal/Arminian view of election.

Of course I agree that 1 Pet 1:2 mirrors 2 Th 2:13. It mirrors that we are sovereignly chosen then salvation is achieved through the spirit's work in sanctifying us and giving faith. As I showed you in our discussion (last week?) on Acts 2, God's foreknowledge is not his knowing peoples actions. Ever. It is his predetermination and knowledge of the outcome of all things that he works out according to his own will.

1 Pet 1:2. foreknowledge--foreordaining love ( 1Pe 1:20 ), inseparable from God's foreknowledge, the origin from which, and pattern according to which, election takes place. Act 2:23, and Rom 11:2, prove "foreknowledge" to be foreordination.

through--Greek, "in"; the element in which we are elected. The "election" of God realized and manifested itself "IN" their sanctification.

sanctification--the Spirit's setting apart of the saint as consecrated to God. The execution of God's choice ( Gal 1:4 ).

This election is said to be according to the foreknowledge of God. Foreknowledge may be taken in two ways:-First, for mere prescience, foresight, or understanding, that such a thing will be, before it comes to pass. Thus a mathematician certainly foreknows that at such a time there will be an eclipse. This sort of foreknowledge is in God, who at one commanding view sees all things that ever were, or are, or ever will be. But such a prescience is not the cause why any thing is so or so, though in the event it certainly will be so, as the mathematician who foresees an eclipse does not thereby cause that eclipse to be. Secondly, Foreknowledge sometimes signifies counsel, appointment, and approbation. Acts 2:23, Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. The death of Christ was not only foreseen, but fore-ordained, as v. 20. Take it thus here; so the sense is, elect according to the counsel, ordination, and free grace of God.

 

[RLBosley]

If I put a fish in a bowl, that it still has free will to swim within that bowl, I place the restrictions though.. in this system does this mean that the fish is more in control than I am?

Are you trying to make my point for me? Like you choosing to put a fish in a bowl, God has decreed and moves all things together to achieve his ends (the fish being in the bowl). The fish (man) is incapable of successfully resisting you (God)(assuming we speak of a goldfish and not a sturgeon!) and cannot change his destiny but is wholly at your mercy (in regards to being placed within the bowl you decided to put him).

Of course this analogy breaks down if pressed to far, as all do, but this goes much further in supporting the monergist position than the synergist.

 

[RLBosley]

That is not true, there must be conviction, and scripture says the Holy Spirit will convict. But a person does not have to be regenerated to be convicted by the word of God.

Jhn 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

What did these men hear? The word of God. Were they convicted? YES. Were they regenerated? NO. These were men who were trying to tempt Jesus so they could accuse him. They were as lost as a turkey on Thanksgiving, yet they were convicted by the word of God. They did not have to be regenerated to understand Jesus's words and be convicted by them.

With this I agree. Unfortunately it has zip to do with the conversation at hand. Conviction is another topic.

The scriptures put the responsibility of learning on the sinner.

Mar 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

Jesus told his disciples that to those that pay attention and hear, MORE shall be given them.

Often, the disciples did not understand Jesus's parables any more than the rest of the people did. What was the difference? The disciples did not give up, but sought to understand, they asked Jesus what the parables meant.

Mat 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

The disciples understood the difficult sayings of Jesus because they had faith. They knew his words were important to know and understand and so they came to him and asked him to explain them. This is why their understanding was greater than others.

And their being chosen by Jesus had nothing to do with it i suppose? *sigh*

If God wants to save those that willingly and freely believe, and damn those who willingly and freely reject Jesus, why can't he?? Who are you to tell God what his criteria for saving someone must be??

Again, for the umpteenth time, that is not the issue. The issue isn't what could God have done in some other world or created order. The question is what has God actually done, as revealed in holy scripture?

No Calvinist is "telling God" anything, despite your outrageous lies to the contrary. We simply are looking at scripture and trying to understand what God's word says. You need to repent of your continual false accusations and slander of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Seems pretty clear that God has already determined who he will save and who he will not.

Yep it is.

It is you Calvinists that are resisting the clear teaching of scripture.

:BangHead:

 

[Winman]

Of course I agree that 1 Pet 1:2 mirrors 2 Th 2:13. It mirrors that we are sovereignly chosen then salvation is achieved through the spirit's work in sanctifying us and giving faith. As I showed you in our discussion (last week?) on Acts 2, God's foreknowledge is not his knowing peoples actions. Ever. It is his predetermination and knowledge of the outcome of all things that he works out according to his own will.

It does not say one word about giving us faith.

Now, as I have said a hundred times, no man could possibly believe on Jesus unless he has heard the gospel. So, faith is a gift in the sense that God gives us the object or substance to believe, which is the gospel. But God does not zap you with faith. You cannot find a word of scripture to support that.

But what both 1 Pet 2:1 and 2 The 2:13 show is that our election or choosing is according to two factors, #1 sanctification of the Spirit, and #2 our belief of the truth.

It is the Spirit that provided the gospel, it is the Spirit that taught us or illuminated us as Jesus says in John 6:45. But it is man's part to believe (or not) when he hears the gospel, and man's election depends upon him believing the gospel.

How could we believe before we existed and heard the gospel? We couldn't. Then how could God choose or elect us before the foundation of the world "through" our belief of the truth? FOREKNOWLEDGE. God could see persons who believed the gospel before they were born. He could see them "in Christ" that is, as believers, and this is whom he chose and elected.

All the scripture agrees.

And we have some figures of God seeing who would believe before they actually did in scripture, as Nathanael;

Jhn 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

1- Note Jesus "saw Nathanael coming to him". This is the language of someone coming in faith (Jhn 6:35, 37, 44, 45, 65), "coming" being synonymous with "believing".

2- Note Jesus called Nathanael an "Israelite indeed". This is the true Jew spoken of in Rom 2:29 whose praise is of God. Note that Jesus complimented and praised Nathanael.

3- Note Nathanael's surprise, and that he asked how Jesus knew him, and that Jesus said "Before" you were called, "I saw thee"

There you go, Jesus knew Nathanael was a true Jew who believed God's word before he ever met him. This is foreknowledge of faith being shown directly in scripture.

Beside that, we are directly told Jesus "knew from the beginning" who believed not. (Jhn 6:64). So evidence for foreknowledge of faith is shown through the scriptures.

And Jesus chose Nathanael (Jhn 6:70).

Calvinists must ignore and reject overwhelming evidence for foreknowledge of faith and being chosen upon this foreknowledge in scripture. Non-Cals and Arminians have always believed men were elected according to God's foreknowledge of faith, and they have MUCH scripture to support this view.

 

[RLBosley]

It does not say one word about giving us faith.

Now, as I have said a hundred times, no man could possibly believe on Jesus unless he has heard the gospel. So, faith is a gift in the sense that God gives us the object or substance to believe, which is the gospel. But God does not zap you with faith. You cannot find a word of scripture to support that.

But what both 1 Pet 2:1 and 2 The 2:13 show is that our election or choosing is according to two factors, #1 sanctification of the Spirit, and #2 our belief of the truth.

It is the Spirit that provided the gospel, it is the Spirit that taught us or illuminated us as Jesus says in John 6:45. But it is man's part to believe (or not) when he hears the gospel, and man's election depends upon him believing the gospel.

How could we believe before we existed and heard the gospel? We couldn't. Then how could God choose or elect us before the foundation of the world "through" our belief of the truth? FOREKNOWLEDGE. God could see persons who believed the gospel before they were born. He could see them "in Christ" that is, as believers, and this is whom he chose and elected.

All the scripture agrees.

No matter how many times you say it, you are still wrong. God does give faith as a gift to his elect, as the scripture I've provided you previously shows. Of course you would rather hold to your tradition than the plain reading of scripture.

No matter how you try and twist it, election is God's free choice in eternity past and is not based on anything but his own will, certainly not based on our actions. You have no scripture to show otherwise.

And we have some figures of God seeing who would believe before they actually did in scripture, as Nathanael;

Jhn 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

1- Note Jesus "saw Nathanael coming to him". This is the language of someone coming in faith (Jhn 6:35, 37, 44, 45, 65), "coming" being synonymous with "believing".

2- Note Jesus called Nathanael an "Israelite indeed". This is the true Jew spoken of in Rom 2:29 whose praise is of God. Note that Jesus complimented and praised Nathanael.

3- Note Nathanael's surprise, and that he asked how Jesus knew him, and that Jesus said "Before" you were called, "I saw thee"

There you go, Jesus knew Nathanael was a true Jew who believed God's word before he ever met him. This is foreknowledge of faith being shown directly in scripture.

Beside that, we are directly told Jesus "knew from the beginning" who believed not. (Jhn 6:64). So evidence for foreknowledge of faith is shown through the scriptures.

And Jesus chose Nathanael (Jhn 6:70).

If you can't see how badly you abuse this passage then I believe you are truly incapable of being helped.

Calvinists must ignore and reject overwhelming evidence for foreknowledge of faith and being chosen upon this foreknowledge in scripture. Non-Cals and Arminians have always believed men were elected according to God's foreknowledge of faith, and they have MUCH scripture to support this view.

:laugh:

 

[RLBosley]

Back to the purpose of my OP - providing arguments against Arminianism, not simply arguing with Winman.

I've seen this credited to the Puritan John Owen. I assume that is indeed the case.

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html



A more modern version courtesy of John Piper: (I am again struck by the trend that some of the most famous John's are Calvinists: John Macarthur, John Piper, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, St. John :smilewinkgrin

Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement

 

[Winman]

No matter how many time you say it, you are still wrong. God does give faith as a gift to his elect, as the scripture I've provided you previously shows. Of course you would rather hold to your tradition than the plain reading of scripture.

It is quite easy to show that faith is not a gift from God.

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Why would Jesus marvel at the centurion's great faith if God had given him that faith? That is absurd and nonsensical. Did Jesus forget that the centurion had been given great faith? Ridiculous.

Mar 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

This verse is just the opposite, Jesus marvelled at his fellow countrymen's unbelief. Did Jesus forget that he had not given these men faith?

So, these verses easily demonstrate that men have their own faith. It makes no sense for Jesus to marvel at great faith, or unbelief if faith is a gift from God.

No matter how you try and twist it, election is God's free choice in eternity past and is not based on anything but his own will, certainly not based on our actions. You have no scripture to show otherwise.

This is easy to refute as well, 1 Pet 1:2 clearly says we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God's election is not free, is it based on something God foreknew. I believe that is faith, and we have direct statements in scripture that shows God knew from the beginning who believed not, therefore by the simple process of elimination he also knew from the beginning who believed.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

If you can't see how badly you abuse this passage then I believe you are truly incapable of being helped.

:laugh:

I didn't abuse it at all, it clearly shows Jesus "knew" who Nathanael was and that he was an "Israelite indeed" before he ever met him. This is foreknowledge of faith clearly shown in scripture.

You are the one in denial.