The act of receiving

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Doubting Thomas,

This is not consistent with ARMINIANISM. ARMINIANISM demands that people have the free will to believe apart from God giving them faith...
...All bt the last are staright CALVINISM. And even the last is comaptible with CALVINISM, since it does not deny the ability to choose...
...But this is not the ARMINIAN position regarding faith and receiving Christ. It is the Calvanist position. You are describing the result of the effectual call....
...The sad relaity is that the god of ARMINIANISM IS a respecter of persons, saving only those who for some reason whcih no ARMINIAN wishes to explain, believe while others do not.

Bible-belted, you seem to be implying that I'm an ARMINIAN, which I am not. This is why some of my views, as you've pointed out, seem to be consistent with Calvinism. However, neither am I a CALVINIST, which is why you and I still disagree on certain key issues. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we agree on more that was initially apparent. I'll try to answer your latest reply in more detail during my lunch break if I get the opportunity.

Peace

 

[Bible-belted]

Doubting Thomas,

First a quibble. I note that when you quoted my last post you did so having altered it without noting that you did so.

I would prefer that, in the future, in the interest of clarity, you do so.

Now then, I am not at all concerned that you do not call yourself arminian or calvanist. In fact the inconsistency (that word not being used to imply anything negative) is, IMO, indicative of the way most folks actually think. It is my experience that most Christians (who don't go to the trouble of exploring the minutiae of doctrine, again not intending to be negative) tend to be arminian in theri view of their life before Christ and calvanist about their life after Christ. It doesn't make for a smooth synthesis, but it happens a lot.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
In the mind of the Calvinist, is believing in Jesus a work or effort? [Acts 16:31] 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved . . . '

My guess is they would say, yes.

Regardless of where you stand on the work/effort issue, Romans 8 says that without the Holy Spirit indwelling in us, it is impossible for us to please God. So either it does not please God for use to "decide" to believe of our own free will (without the Spirit), or we need to have the Holy Spirit in order to believe (in which case we are already His before we "decide").

Which would you say is more likely?

(I realize this was not the point you were making, but IMO people get side-tracked by the faith/effort issue, and I felt like addressing it.)

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible-belted,

You said, 'This is not consistent with Arminianism. I don't know about other non-Calvinist writers but I am not interested in staying within the confines of Arminianism in order to defend his view. Some things that Calvinists believe are correct.

I also believe as do Calvinists that we are not inclined or do not seek after God. We also agree that as sinners and at times even as His people we do not always keep the Law. You are right that we cannot atone for our own sins; we desperately need a Savior.

Now the area of disagreement. . . Almighty God does not give faith. [John 5:40] He does give us human life and a soul which is responsible to Him; and in this sense He ordains within each sinner the ability to understand the Gospel when it is offered to him. He is given the opportunity, prompted by the Holy Spirit, to choose the best which is Jesus and His new life. God does, however, give grace [Ephesians 2:8; Acts 16:31]

While the sinner does not seek after God; He nevertheless, is continually searching after human beings by way of the Holy Spirit. [Revelation 22:17] Not only is the Spirit calling sinner to receive the saving Person through the message, the Church 'bride' is also calling to all the lost. {Whosoever will} These last two words unfetter Calvinism from their restricted view of lost people. Clearly, man does have a free will. 'And let him that heareth say come; and let him that is athirst come and WHOEVER WILLS, let him take of the water of life, freely. Free grace is openly offered to every human being who hears the Gospel.

You referred to His gift. A gift suggests His offer and our human response rather than as Calvinists belief as to 'forced entry' through the Effectual Calling.

The Fall was not so devastating as to always keep humans away from using their volition in a free and confident way. Some real positive aspects of the 'image of God' in man still remain in us before we come to know Jesus. {intellect, will, conscience, love, justice--and perhaps other likeness from God} [James 3:9] After the Fall and during the time of Noah, God is still maintaining that human beings are created in the likeness of the 'image of God.' [Genesis 9:6]

God has given sinners time, which we call life; He has offered the Gift of Himself which most strongly suggests the freedom to activate the human will [Revelation 22:17 e ] and to receive Christ. [John 1:12]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You referred to His gift. A gift suggests His offer and our human response rather than as Calvinists belief as to 'forced entry' through the Effectual Calling.

That may be what you think of when you consider the word "gift", but it does not "suggest" that to everyone. That's why it is foolish to build a theology on inference (what a word or concept in the Bible happens to suggest to you).

You also contradict yourself on this very issue later...

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
God has given sinners time, which we call life; He has offered the Gift of Himself which most strongly suggests the freedom to activate the human will [Revelation 22:17 e ] and to receive Christ. [John 1:12]

Given us life? Given us time? You mean He gave it to us as in giving a gift? So why is it that you do not argue that God offered us time and offered us life, and it is up to us whether or not we decide how long we shall live or decide whether or not to be born at all?

Because it would be ludicrous to suggest any such thing, that's why!

So you have two clauses separated only by a semi-colon. On your left you have a gift given without consulting us or asking our approval, and on the right the only way to receive a gift is to accept it of one's own free will. Now if anything qualifies as a gift, surely your paragraph does. Rarely does one get to see such a stunning contradiction stated so clearly.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Doubting Thomas,

First a quibble. I note that when you quoted my last post you did so having altered it without noting that you did so.

I would prefer that, in the future, in the interest of clarity, you do so.

I believe you are referring to my putting certain words of yours in "all-caps" which was not in your original quote. You're right--I should have noted that I did so for emphasis. I had no intention to misrepresent what you stated--only to emphasize what I was responding too. I apologize, and will note where I change your statements in the future. Peace.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Nepetreley,

Please, don't get tangled in your own explanation of what I said. Follow the Scriptural references in February 13--10:07a.m. and you will be on the correct track.

My regards . . .

 

[Ray Berrian]

All Christians know that it is impossible to please God apart from knowing Him. But, someone suggested something to the effect that because a sinner cannot please God, even to decide to believe in Jesus of one's own free will is also unacceptable to Him without the indwelling of the Spirit. Placing on the table one's thoughts, 'ex nihilo' is not credible exegesis.

It is more likely that in the general call of the Holy Spirit to sinners, every sincere scholar and student of the Word should understand that why would the Spirit be trying to call us to Christ and then refuse our response to His accolades. [John 16:8; Revelation 22:17]

Only a Calvinist could get 'cornered' in this matter because they believe that the Effectual Call is the only effect one; the other one toward the non-elect is merely 'window dressing.'

Insincerity and partiality is not considered by theologians as part of the Christian faith. God is equitable toward all sinners. [John 7:37; Acts 2:21; 17:30; Romans 2:11]

The sinners responsibility is to 'believe' and trust in Christ. [John 3:16]

 

[Bible-belted]

Doubting Thomas (can I just call you "DT"?)

I know you have no evil intentions. I trust to peo-ple's good intentions unless I have reason to do otherwise, and you have given me no such reason.

Ray,

You are still dodgomg the issue of the origin of faith, and the fact that of faith originates with us then it is one that makes God our debtor, acting out fo compulsion to justify, and not grace.

You speak a lot in general terms without addressing the nitty gritty issues. Why is that?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Doubting Thomas,

I never said that people do not have the ability to choose. Calvanists hold that we have a will (ability to choose) but it is not free in the arminian sense (able to choose all options equally). Calvanists hld that the will is free to choose anything in accordance with the nature of that which wills. As we are by nature onjects of wrath, slaves to sin, and helplessly in Adam, we are bound by our nature to be unable to chgoose God. It is simply no longer in our nature. The will exists, but is in bondage. So there is no change in the position being expounded.

The fact is that we are unable to obey the law completely, even though we are held accountabe by God for our failure to do so. Responsibility does not imply ability.

(italics added by me, D.T., for emphasis.)

Again I think that your first sentence (which I italicized) and the latter one (ditto) appear to be somewhat inconsistent. You acknowledge we do have an ability to choose but that responsibility doesn't imply that ability. Am I reading that right? You acknowledge man can choose--with which, of course, I agree--but seem to say that THAT ability (to choose) is not implied by responsibility. I think that if you added the word "equal" in front of "ability" in your last sentence, it would read more consistently.

Secondly, yes, men are described by Scripture as being "by NATURE children of wrath" (Eph 2:3), but that does not limit man's "free" choice to doing ONLY those things which are evil. If so, then this would contradict Paul's words in Romans 2:14 that states that even unregenerate Gentiles "by NATURE do the things in the Law". I think in the first case (Eph.), Paul is referring to our nature of sinful tendencies (and accompanying actions) that justly brings us under God's wrath, and in the latter (Rom.) he's referring that, even so, we still have the work of the law "written on our heart" and demonstrate this by observing the Law on occasion. So in other words, despite the fact that we are slaves to sin and have innate tendencies to sin as a matter of habit and lifestyle, we CAN, and occasionally DO, observe God's standards contained in the Law, albeit not perfectly.

No. One man chose to sin. Only one. The rest of us get the condemnation for it even though we do not sin after the likeness of Adam (Romans 5). As p[eople in Adam, helpless, and enemies of God (and we are so until we are in Christ, and not before, whcih Arminianism requires) then we will not choose grace.

I disagree with you here. We all choose to sin. The difference is that Adam didn't originally have a sinful NATURE as the one we inherit from him. We PRESENT OURSELVES as slaves to obey sin. (Rom 6:16). Although we CHOOSE to do this, because we inherit a sinful nature, it is inevitable that each of us WILL choose to so present ourselves.

Without going into a lengthy discussion regarding Romans 5, I'll just say that according to Ezekiel 18 (particularly verse 20) each one bears the guilt of his OWN sin, not the sin of his "father". I'll just leave it at that for now

.

We cannot choose grace. We do not have the ability to receive the grace. We don't want it. Not unless the Holy Spirit by virtue fo the effectual call works in us to grant us that faith, and then we exercise it.

I disagree here. Although we don't "choose grace" without first being offered it, nor start off desiring it, I believe that under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit we CAN receive it--or reject it.

Yes, and becuase of his falen nature his volition is only to reject. YOu are arguing calvnaism, not arminianism here. Calvanism affirms human accoutnability.

No, the volition TENDS to reject (and by habit DOES reject), but doesn't ONLY reject. When God moves us to Himself, we can, by grace, receive Him. Or we can "insult the Spirit of Grace" and "draw back from Him."(Heb 10:26-39)

The sad relaity is that the god of arminianism IS a respecter of persons, saving only those who for some reason whcih no arminian wishes to explain, believe while others do not. Elitism, pure and simple. Ths is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Again, not speaking for Arminians, God giving His creatures the option of rejecting Him is not "elitism" or nor is it a matter of Him being a "respecter of persons". It's only by HIS mercy and grace (and NOT our effort) that any may come to Him. That is certainly no basis for elitism.

[ February 13, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible belted,

The promise of grace [Ephesians 2:8] is all that a sinner needs from God; He has provided the atonement of sins. [I John 2:2] The gift [Romans 5:18b] has been offered to all. [Romans 5:18b]

Faith comes from the mind/intellect, conscience and good judgment of the sinner. This is the plan of the sovereign God in giving human beings the choice of Heaven or Hell. [John 3:18] Notice the option connected to the human will and decision making process.

If you check my posts and yours you will see yours have minimal Scriptural backing. And then there is always your learned presuppositions.

All due respect,
Ray

 

[Yelsew]

Yes, and becuase of his falen nature his volition is only to reject. YOu are arguing calvnaism, not arminianism here. Calvanism affirms human accoutnability.

Christianity affirms human accountability. Calvinism and Armenianism and all the isms are merely ways of viewing Christianity.

 

[Ray Berrian]

As to whoever wrote post February 13 2:05 p.m. relative to Hebrews 10:26-39 is understanding things correctly and within Bible perimeters and exegesis. Your comments prior to this above reference from the author of Hebrews were some that I have not used in a long time. Thanks!

 

[rufus]

npetreley, I appreciate the exegesis in your originating post.

rufus

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
As to whoever wrote post February 13 2:05 p.m. relative to Hebrews 10:26-39 is understanding things correctly and within Bible perimeters and exegesis. Your comments prior to this above reference from the author of Hebrews were some that I have not used in a long time. Thanks!

That was me, and "You're welcome"

Peace.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by rufus:
npetreley, I appreciate the exegesis in your originating post.

rufus

Thanks for the encouraging words, rufus! To God be the glory.

 

[Ray Berrian]

According to "Unconditional Election," if it were true, would make God the greatest Author of 'elitism' every known to human beings. The elect would be the 'elite' and the rest of sinners merely pawns trudging toward the flaming, pit of everlasting destruction; and through it all well-pleasing to Almighty God. This God of justice and love would have to somehow circumvent His own Divine nature in order to bring in this kind of plan for those living in all ages.

'Believing' and 'trusting' in Christ portrays God as having a universal love for all who He has created, meaning human beings. [John 3:18] This Biblical view is fair and within His concern for Divine justice even before His Divine throne above and also toward this world of people who He has created 'in His Image' and for His glory. If anyone characterizes Arminian theology to this venue, we gladly embrace this theological train of thought, because it is synchronized with His freedom of will and sovereignty coming from God Himself. [John 3:16].

 

[Bible-belted]

DT,

Again I think that your first sentence (which I italicized) and the latter one (ditto) appear to be somewhat inconsistent.

Context. The first sentence is conssitenrt with the last when you note that the last is in the context of complete obedience to the law. The point being that there is a standard that we are unable to meet.

I think that if you added the word "equal" in front of "ability" in your last sentence, it would read more consistently.

That is what I mean, so if you want to add that, go for it.

but that does not limit man's "free" choice to doing ONLY those things which are evil.

Never said it did. I think this is the thrid time I have had to remind you that calvanism does allow for people doing good things and partial obeidence. But partial obeidence is really disobedience anyway.

We all choose to sin.

We're talking apples and oranges here. Of course we choose to sin, but our choice does nt put is "In Adam". We are in that by virtue of having been in and with Adam federally and seminally when he sinned. That takes care fo the ezekiel passage.

Although we don't "choose grace" without first being offered it, nor start off desiring it, I believe that under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit we CAN receive it--or reject it.

Yes, under the influence of the effectual call. Not otherwise.

No, the volition TENDS to reject (and by habit DOES reject), but doesn't ONLY reject.

We are enemies of God, in Adam helpless, dead in trespasses and sins, by nature objects of wrath, etc... I am afraid your statemet here is not conssitent with scripture on this point. We are enemies of God until we are jsutifie. Enemies don't choose grace. It's that simple.

God giving His creatures the option of rejecting Him is not "elitism" or nor is it a matter of Him being a "respecter of persons"

Not in acalvanist system no, But in any ohter, yes.

It's only by HIS mercy and grace (and NOT our effort) that any may come to Him. That is certainly no basis for elitism.

Unfortunately arminianism (which I undertsand you are not defnding, does work out that way. They hold that God will not reject anyone that believes, but they hold that faith is worked up by us. Some of us have something in us that does not reject the leading of the Spirit. That something is what makes it about elitism, and it is also what makes that version of faith a work as per Romans 4.

Thanks for your thoughts and observations DT.

 

[Bible-belted]

Ray,

You are still not dealing with the issue. You dodge like a kid in the schoolyard.

I can agree with your scriptures, but that does not make the assumptions (which you STILL do not even acknowledge evn though they have been explicitly pointed out a number of times) valid.

You have not proven your assumptions. You have proven thngs which are not pertinent to the questions put to you. Such misdirection will not work. Answer the challenge. If you can.

That you engage in avopidance like this and yety try to tar me with the learned presuposition tag is indicative of how unable you, an alleged ThD, are to answer the questions put to you.

If you do not excplicitly address the issues I will simply ignore you as one who is unlearned and unable to engage in meaningful discussion. you may protet such a conclusion, but in light of your behaviour there is no reason to infer anything else. By therri fruits you shall know them.

 

[Jacob]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
According to "Unconditional Election," if it were true, would make God the greatest Author of 'elitism' every known to human beings. The elect would be the 'elite' and the rest of sinners merely pawns trudging toward the flaming, pit of everlasting destruction;

Good point!

Jacob.