The Arminian Dilemma

[agedman]

Give it up man. You simply do not know how to admit you are wrong. Those 3000 men did not have the Holy Spirit, which refutes your interpretation of Romans 8:7-8. They were able to repent and believe on Jesus, and afterward they received the Spirit.

You love Calvinism more than you love the word of God.

You don't know that the Holy Spirit was not working (as surely was upon Saul/Paul, Cornelius, the Philippian Jailor, Eunuch).

That is pure speculation on your part.

The Scriptures state Simeon had the Spirit, David prayed that the Spirit not be taken from him, Mary had the Spirit come upon her, Elizabeth felt John the Baptizer move inside her when she saw Mary.

Nicodemus was told by Christ, that the Spirit is like the wind. No one knows where it has been or where it is going. It is under the direction and purpose of the Father.

That YOU desire it to appear at some place according to your own scheme is not warrant to suggest that many did not have the work of the Spirit before Pentecost. John 12 (if my memory is correct) states MANY of the rulers believed but did not confess out of fear. How could they believe without the HS doing the work?

One more point.

How would you react to someone who states to you, "You love your lies more than the Word of God?"

In effect that is how you closed your post.

Do you really think that type of statement wins any favors?

Winman, you have some good thinking, please don't try to bolster your argument with these kind of statements.

 

[Winman]

You don't know that the Holy Spirit was not working (as surely was upon Saul/Paul, Cornelius, the Philippian Jailor, Eunuch).

Sure, the Holy Spirit was working to convince them. When they saw flames appear above the apostles heads, and when they heard the apostles and disciples speak in their native language, this was a very convincing demonstration of God's power. It was a miracle before their eyes.

But here is the part that seems to escape Calvinists, the supernatural work was performed on and by the believers, not the unbelievers. There is no mention of a supernatural work happening to the 3000 unbelievers, it does not say they were regenerated to have the ability to believe. No, the supernatural work was performed on the believers only.

That is pure speculation on your part.

The Scriptures state Simeon had the Spirit, David prayed that the Spirit not be taken from him, Mary had the Spirit come upon her, Elizabeth felt John the Baptizer move inside her when she saw Mary.

Nicodemus was told by Christ, that the Spirit is like the wind. No one knows where it has been or where it is going. It is under the direction and purpose of the Father.

Not quite, you forget one very important detail, Jesus told Nicodemus he could HEAR the Spirit.

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

How do you hear the Spirit? By hearing God's word.

That YOU desire it to appear at some place according to your own scheme is not warrant to suggest that many did not have the work of the Spirit before Pentecost. John 12 (if my memory is correct) states MANY of the rulers believed but did not confess out of fear. How could they believe without the HS doing the work?

Men are born with the innate ability to believe, but no man can believe what he does not know. When the apostles and disciples spoke in tongues on the day of Pentacost, they were able to preach the gospel to each person present in their native language. This is all that was necessary for them to believe, and 3000 did believe that day.

One more point.

How would you react to someone who states to you, "You love your lies more than the Word of God?"

In effect that is how you closed your post.

If I was ignoring scripture to hold to a system, I would be convicted.

Do you really think that type of statement wins any favors?

Winman, you have some good thinking, please don't try to bolster your argument with these kind of statements.

I am not here to win friends, I am here to stop error. I showed Biblicist at least half a dozen verses that all showed unregenerate men without the Holy Spirit could believe the gospel.

He can read, he knows what I showed him was true. I was not twisting or wresting scripture in any way, and he knows that.

And if you have been reading these scriptures then YOU also know I was not twisting or wresting scripture.

So, you have a choice, which are you going to believe, the word of God, or Calvinism?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan to Biblicist


Indeed a mixture. Timothy was saved even before he became a Christian according to 2Tim 3:13-16.

And in Romans 11:1-6 even after the cross Paul admits to both lost and saved individuals being in the nation of Israel - even though the nation itself was in apostasy.

I don't think this point makes or breaks that case you are making for Calvinism - but it is certainly a Bible detail that can be confirmed in the text.

False, Timothy was saved by believing on Jesus.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

There is nothing in this scripture to teach Timothy was saved before he became a Christian.

Romans 1 has nothing to do with Pentacost. At Pentacost the 3000 were not saved, neither did they have the Holy Spirit, else Peter would not need to promise them the Spirit if they repent and are baptized.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Further proof they were not saved is verse 40;

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

In Acts 2 Peter says "you put Christ to death" yet this was Pentecost 50 days after Passover - and while some people may have attended the trial 50 days before - many were likely attending after hearing about the events 50 days earlier.

You cannot bend the text farther than the details allow.

2 Tim 1
3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands

That is the background and context for 2Tim 3

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


There were indeed - saints - in the OT

3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you

And "the scriptures" being talked about in 2Tm 3:14-17 are first and foremost what we today call "The Old Testament".



More OLD testament saints -

Enoch and Abel:
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Genesis 5
24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.



Noah:

Heb 11
6 Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. 7 By faith Noah, after he was warned about what was not yet seen and motivated by godly fear, built an ark to deliver his family. By faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.


Genesis 6
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Genesis 7
7 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

What "kind" of righteousness??
Heb 11:7 the righteousness that comes by faith.

 

[agedman]

...

Not quite, you forget one very important detail, Jesus told Nicodemus he could HEAR the Spirit.

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

How do you hear the Spirit? By hearing God's word.

...

I am not here to win friends, I am here to stop error. I showed Biblicist at least half a dozen verses that all showed unregenerate men without the Holy Spirit could believe the gospel.

He can read, he knows what I showed him was true. I was not twisting or wresting scripture in any way, and he knows that.

And if you have been reading these scriptures then YOU also know I was not twisting or wresting scripture.

So, you have a choice, which are you going to believe, the word of God, or Calvinism?

Wiman,

Short answer: You have again misaligned the Scriptures.

Using your own example, you said,

"Not quite, you forget one very important detail, Jesus told Nicodemus he could HEAR the Spirit."
​

Then you tried to show proof by posting this verse:

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
​

Then you attempt to validate your statement by assuming your statement was correct, saying,

"How do you hear the Spirit? By hearing God's word."
​

The problem is that what is heard was the WIND - not the Spirit. "The WIND bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest THE SOUND THEREOF..."

The "thereof" refers back to the wind, not spirit.

 

[Winman]

Wiman,

Short answer: You have again misaligned the Scriptures.

Using your own example, you said,

"Not quite, you forget one very important detail, Jesus told Nicodemus he could HEAR the Spirit."
​

Then you tried to show proof by posting this verse:

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
​

Then you attempt to validate your statement by assuming your statement was correct, saying,

"How do you hear the Spirit? By hearing God's word."
​

The problem is that what is heard was the WIND - not the Spirit. "The WIND bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest THE SOUND THEREOF..."

The "thereof" refers back to the wind, not spirit.

No, Jesus was comparing the Holy Spirit to the wind. You can't see the wind, but you can hear it. Likewise, you can hear the Spirit when you hear God's word.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

You see, Jesus's words, or the word of God, is spirit.

I knew what I was saying.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, Jesus was comparing the Holy Spirit to the wind. You can't see the wind, but you can hear it. Likewise, you can hear the Spirit when you hear God's word.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

You see, Jesus's words, or the word of God, is spirit.

I knew what I was saying.

Winman, He is not talking about the Spirit but the person who is born of the Spirit - "so is everyone born of the Spirit".

Nicodemus understood birth in only one dimension, entrance back into his mothers womb. This he understood because he could see it but a birth by the Spirit - "how can these things be" was his question as the Spirit of God is unseen. Jesus explained, that even though one cannot see the wind, one can see the effects of the wind and know it is real - "SO IS everyone born of the Spirit." You can look at a person and see the effects of the Holy Spirit manifest in their life. Paul called such manifest effects "the fruit of the Spirit."

So this passage has nothing to do with preaching the gospel but rather the manifest effects of the Holy Spirit due to new birth.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

You see, Jesus's words, or the word of God, is spirit.

I knew what I was saying.

The words Jesus is referring to are those words that offended them and which they regarded as too "hard" to accept. For those not born of the Spirit many things are too hard to accept because they don't have any spiritual ability to understand spiritual things.

In regard to understanding spiritual things "the flesh profiteth nothing."

In regard to those difficult words that offended them "they are spirit." Notice that both the English and Greek drop the definite article (the) which is the way the Greek expresses characterization. He means they are to be understood SPIRITUALLY not literally as both the Pharisees and these disciples and the church of Rome attempt to literally interpret these words - "eat my flesh and drink my blood."

Second, they are life. They characterize what is essential for eternal life as Jesus had clearly said in regard to these words:

54 Whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 ¶ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said to them, Does this offend you?
62 What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He is not saying these offensive words in and of themselves quicken anyone. He is simply saying one must be born of the Spirit to understand spiritual things as the flesh profiteth nothing in regard to understanding spiritual things. His words are not to be understood literally but they are spiritual in character as he was using metaphorical language. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood are metaphors of partaking of him by faith and thus characterize how to obtain spiritual life - hence, understood spiritually, such words "are life"

 

[Skandelon]

I think I missed this one before...

I don't ever recall claiming that enablement is found in any kind of light. I believe I have claimed that enablement was found only in God. I beleive what I have claimed from the very beginning that the gosple is the power of God to salvation not that the "power of men" but "of God." It is empowered by God's word of command - 2 Cor. 4:6

We are not saying that the gospel is anything other than God's power. It is the power OF God UNTO SALVATION...

Neither the law or the gospel can enable the fallen nature to attain righteousness because the fallen nature is no more righteous after salvation than it was before

That has NOTHING to do with the means of attaining righteousness. Under law it was thought to be by law through works...UNATTAINABLE. Under gospel it IS ACTUALLY and ALWAYS HAS BEEN by grace through faith...which is ATTAINABLE, because that is the actual purpose for which it was sent. You are focusing all of your attention on the nature of man and ignoring the nature of God's work in revelation...as if that has nothing to do with the ability of man's response and potential attainment.

Call yes, enable no, as the gospel has no power in and of itself to enable immutable sinful nature to be holy.

Aww, here is where the root of your misunderstanding rests.

Asking for forgiveness, and believing in God doesn't make one holy. Just because one seeks forgiveness doesn't mean they deserve it. If someone killed your loved one then begged for forgiveness would that make them worthy of being forgiven and freed? Of course not, that would be CHOICE of the one OFFENDED. The choice of God to forgive those who ask is ALL OF GRACE. He chooses exalt the humble, not because the humble deserve it, but because HE IS GRACIOUS. He chooses to make us Holy through imputation of Christ's blood, but that is not something we earn, deserve, or merit in any way shape or form. That is completely God's gracious choice.

"Humble yourselves and you will be exalted."

 

[The Biblicist]

I think I missed this one before...

We are not saying that the gospel is anything other than God's power. It is the power OF God UNTO SALVATION...

You don't believe that! You believe it is the POTENTIAL unto salvation as the gospel has no power to actually save everyone that hears it. In reality you believe the human will is the determining power while the gospel provides the potential of salvation.

We believe the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth but faith is originates out of grace (ek) and terminates in (eis)grace and thus all of grace (Rom. 1:16 "ek.....eis").

which is ATTAINABLE, because that is the actual purpose for which it was sent.

No it was not sent for that purpose. Its purpose is DECLARATIVE only - it announces what salvation is and where it is to be found. Only God's purpose of grace according to election ATTAINS it:

Rom. 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for; but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

 

[Skandelon]

You don't believe that! You believe it is the POTENTIAL unto salvation

It accomplishes its purpose, which is to enable a response. That's what invitations (as in the wedding banquet analogy) and 'appeal' (2 Cor 5) are INTENDED to do. A gift or invitation doesn't have to be effectually applied (forced) in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it.

This approach is consistent with all of God's provisions of grace throughout history. Lifting the snake in the dessert is PROVISIONAL to all, not effectual for a select few. The passover was PROVISIONAL to all, not effectual for a select few...etc.

No it was not sent for that purpose. Its purpose is DECLARATIVE only - it announces what salvation is and where it is to be found.

This is hyper-Calvinism and should be avoided by Reformed brethren. When you begin explaining away the appeal or offer of the gospel meant for all man, you are stepping into dangerous ground.

 

[Skandelon]

From Phil Johnson/John MacArthur:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

 

[The Biblicist]

It accomplishes its purpose, which is to enable a response. That's what invitations (as in the wedding banquet analogy) and 'appeal' (2 Cor 5) are INTENDED to do. A gift or invitation doesn't have to be effectually applied (forced) in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it.

You admit that the fallen nature or those "in the flesh" have the "carnal" or "fleshly" mind which "is enmity against God which is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be" and that the Gospel enables that kind of nature to be its very opposite - love God and submissive to the gospel??? That by definition is regeneration as that is a CHANGE OF NATURE to its exact opposite and that is exactly what is required to come to Christ submissively in faith.

Now that is true when the gospel comes "not in word only" but "IN power and IN the Holy Spirit and IN much assurance" and that is precisely how it does come to the elect - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

But that is not true every time it is preached or to anyone it is preached.

By the way, had no comment on Romans 11:7 that explicilty says that "election has ATTAINED IT" rather than the Gospel???? Your silence is admission of error.

 

[Skandelon]

You admit that the fallen nature or those "in the flesh" have the "carnal" or "fleshly" mind which "is enmity against God which is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be" and that the Gospel enables that kind of nature to be its very opposite - love God...

no, no, no
I'm seeing more and more how you view our system. No wonder you have rejected it. I would too if I thought what you did.

In our system, the nature of man doesn't change until after he comes. He turns to have the veil removed. He is regenerated after he believes. He is forgiven after he repents. And it is those who are forgiven much who love much. The new nature of love and gratitude come AFTER not before repentance and forgiveness.

Think about the story of the prodigal as just an example. Was the son really changed on his way home? He was going home with just a hope to be forgiven, and maybe given a servants position. He was broken, humiliated and shamed on his way home, he wasn't loving or caring for his father. That came after he got all that mercy and grace upon his return. Those forgiven much love much! Understand?

 

[Skandelon]

No it was not sent for that purpose. Its purpose is DECLARATIVE only

Please heed the rebuke from Phil Johnson/John MacArthur about this hyper-Calvinistic view of yours...didn't know if you saw that post.

- it announces what salvation is and where it is to be found. Only God's purpose of grace according to election ATTAINS it:

Rom. 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for; but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Read what he goes on to say about 'the rest' and my point will be made clear. The rest, are stumbling but not beyond recovery. The rest are hardened but still might be provoked to envy and saved. The rest are being 'cut off' but may be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief. All of those are almost VERBATIM quotes of what happens to the 'rest who were hardened.'

The remnant reserved from the hardening is in reference to Jews, like Paul, who were not 'sent a spirit of stupor' but who were set apart as the divinely appointed messengers of the gospel light, sent to all the world. God always reserves a group of messengers to carry his truth throughout every generation...that is what Paul is referencing earlier when he speak of being used for noble purposes, where 'the rest' of Israel was used for the common purpose of being hardened in their rebellion so as to accomplish redemption for the world.

 

[The Biblicist]

From Phil Johnson/John MacArthur:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,

I don't deny it applies to all who physically hear it because all who hear it need to be saved. But I don't believe it is EFFECTUALLY applied to all that hear it and neither does MacArthur.

OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,

I do not deny it is the "duty" of everyone who hears it. But I don't believe all who hear it have the "ability" and neither does MacArthur.

OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),

Certainly the gospel conditionally offers the salvation to every person who hears it. But I deny that every person who hears it is willing or able to meet those conditions and so does MacArthur.

OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace,"

Of course I believe in "common" grace. God gives rain to the good and bad. He takes care of the non-elect and their needs because the elect must come through them and is effected by them. However, I don't believe that "common" grace gives ability to believe and neither does MacArthur.

OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Of course I believe that God loves all creation including Satan and fallen angels. They are all partakers of His generosity, blessings and power. The fact he does not instantly destroy Satan or eliminate all his powers is gracious. However, I don't beleive God redemptively loves all his creatures equally and neither does McArthur.

Of course you already know this and you already know what MacArther beleives and so why play this silly game?

 

[The Biblicist]

Please heed the rebuke from Phil Johnson/John MacArthur about this hyper-Calvinistic view of yours...didn't know if you saw that post.

This is just plain misrepresentation and false accusation against me. I know fully well what MacArthur believes and he would be in perfect fellowship with my views. You obviously do not know what MacArthur believes or never read him carefully.

 

[Skandelon]

This is just plain misrepresentation and false accusation against me. I know fully well what MacArthur believes and he would be in perfect fellowship with my views. You obviously do not know what MacArthur believes or never read him carefully.

I apologize. It sounded like you were denying that the gospel was an offer meant for all, and instead was only 'declarative.'

Was I mistaken, because if you go back and read that post, that is precisely what you wrote. Maybe you meant it differently than it came across?

 

[Skandelon]

I argued that the gospel was sent for the purpose of making an appeal or offer to all people...and you replied..

No it was not sent for that purpose. Its purpose is DECLARATIVE only - it announces what salvation is and where it is to be found. Only God's purpose of grace according to election

AND

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
No it was not sent for that purpose. Its purpose is DECLARATIVE only

But after reading MacArthur's rebuke you write instead:

Certainly the gospel conditionally offers the salvation to every person who hears it. But I deny that every person who hears it is willing or able to meet those conditions and so does MacArthur.

You shifted the purpose of the gospel to being a 'conditional offer.' So, it is not 'only declarative' as you first stated?

Then you shifted to comment again on the inability of man to willingly heed that offer. So which is it?

I'm confused?

This is significant because the law is never presented as an offer, which goes to "PURPOSE" and thus the "POWER" behind it. If you willingly admit its an offer then you are in agreement with the shift in purpose.

 

[The Biblicist]

I apologize. It sounded like you were denying that the gospel was an offer meant for all, and instead was only 'declarative.'

Was I mistaken, because if you go back and read that post, that is precisely what you wrote. Maybe you meant it differently than it came across?

the gospel DECLARES the provision and promise of salvation to all that hear it. Nothing prevents any sinner from being saved but their own willful resistance and rejection due to their own forfeiture of ability when acting in the very best state possible - a sinless man - Adam.

 

[Skandelon]

the gospel DECLARES the provision and promise of salvation to all that hear it.

So, do you believe it's an offer of salvation intended for all or not?

Nothing prevents any sinner from being saved but their own willful resistance and rejection due to their own forfeiture of ability when acting in the very best state possible - a sinless man - Adam.

So, do you consider yourself a four pointer? I ask because this is typically the reasoning of those who deny limited atonement.