-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Question Arminians Can't Answer
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Samuel,
Part 2
Part 2
MY MOTHER made the difference in me! She not only made me go to Sunday School and Child Evangelism classes, She took me, and made me read the scriptures aloud, often embarrassingly in front of my friends. That however was not all, she made me sit and listen at home while she read to me from Eggemeirs Bible Story Book. She is now in the Arms of Jesus where she heard him say, "well done my good and faithful servant"!
PERSUASION is the sole purpose of Scripture!
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Gee, sound just like what I said, I just did not carry my explanation past the stage of beginning the Sanctification process through our belief.
You were not specific in your criticism or I would have responded directly to what caused you embarassment.
I disagree that Sanctification and holiness are as you describe. Sanctification is a process with a beginning and end, Holiness is a state of being. One Does not need to be holy to be sanctified, nor does one need to be sanctified to be holy. The sanctification process begins with initial belief in Jesus, therefore one who comes to that point is thus sanctified, but is not Holy, only covered (similar to insurance coverage) by the blood of the Lamb. One is protected from loss so long as the belief in Jesus is sustained.
I do however, believe that the Sanctification process leads to holiness.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That is indeed a wonderful tribute to your mother, she sounds like she was a very Godly woman.
But, I must ask the question who gave you to your mother? And who gave your mother the grace, wisdom and guidance to do what she did for you? Who, by grace, opened your mother's eyes before you were even born? I know your mother wouldn't want the credit or the glory for what God has done. So I must press the question, "Why did you believe?"
Really, I thought the Bible was God Breathed and profitable for rebuke, correcting and training in righteousness. Yep, I think I'm right. And now I'm about to use it to correct you:
I Cor. 2:4: "My message and my preaching were NOT with wise and PERSUASIVE words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that you faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."
This from a man who wrote most of our New Testament scripture. Hmmmm
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Once again you are revealing to everyone you lack of knowledge on this subject. Holy means "to be set apart for a sacred use" which is ultimately the adjective form of the verb Santify.
Holy = adjective describing one being Santified (set apart)
Santify = verb form of the word Holy (to be made Holy)
They are the same root meaning. So to ask, "What does Santification have to do with Holiness?" Is like asking what does H2O have to do with water?
Can you see why am questioning your knowledge on this matter?
With all this talk about the "stumper" for Arminianism, it is true that that is a hard to answer question, without it being construed as still having something "good" innate in one who chooses right. However, "what causes you to differ from another" is not a biblical question in that repect (1 Cor.4:7 is talking about believers within the church, not believers vs. unbelievers). However, Calvinism is not without its holes or "Achille's Heel" as well.
•Takes "called vs. blinded/sheep vs. goats/God's seed(wheat) vs. Satan's seed(tares)/good ground vs. shallow, stony or thorny ground" to be eternal states.
So these "called" were never "blind"; they never did not hear His voice (as the sheep); they never did not believe in Him (as the "children of God" rather than the Children of Satan--John 8:42,44); they never did not yield fruit or previously turn away for not understanding, the cares if the world, or fear of persecution (and nobody who ever did those things would be saved)
Therefore, they were never in any real sense, lost sinners, but at the worst, could have been nothing more than something akin to backslidden saints (who simply didn't yet know they were saints). Basically, then, the Primitives are right, that the preaching of the Gospel is just feeding sheep rather than God's means of saving them (yet they are still wrong if it is true that all were once children of wrath who had to at some point get saved).
•consistently uses Romans 9:22,23 as describing Hell when it is discussing earthly show of power to people on earth.
Nobody has ever seen "hardened" Pharaoh or "blinded" Israel[ites] go to Hell!
Even in a framework of unconditional election, God could save ("unharden", "unblind") them after that purpose was fulfilled.
•Insists God really gives a "genuine" offer of life, to the non-elect (who thus can be "held responsible" for "freely rejecting it") when God never intended to save them (and intentionally blinded them) [single predestinationists, mainly]
Just like they have pointed out in the non-Calvinists when confrontd with "why does one believe and not the other", the Calvinists fudge around the issue, arguing an "effectual call" when they do begin hearing His voice, bearing fruit, etc. But that still doesn't answer the problem: were they ever blind or not? did they always hear His voice, or not? Other two points, they just reiterate their position. Eventually, you might get something like "you guys are just using reason". Most often, the conversation is shifted back to "why does one believe and not another" as the ultimate clincher for Calvinism.
The conclusion: this argument really doesn't have an earthly solution. (Both sides acknowledge "it's above us" at different times) We should just realize that Augustine of Hippo opened up a can of worms by going beyond the simple Gospel of "man is lost, yet Christ saves" into trying to deeply hypothesize the timeless mechanics of election. It's just another distraction for us to be arguing with each oter over, rather than just preaching the Gospel to the lost.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
•Takes "called vs. blinded/sheep vs. goats/God's seed(wheat) vs. Satan's seed(tares)/good ground vs. shallow, stony or thorny ground" to be eternal states.
So these "called" were never "blind"; they never did not hear His voice (as the sheep); they never did not believe in Him (as the "children of God" rather than the Children of Satan--John 8:42,44); they never did not yield fruit or previously turn away for not understanding, the cares if the world, or fear of persecution (and nobody who ever did those things would be saved)
Therefore, they were never in any real sense, lost sinners, but at the worst, could have been nothing more than something akin to backslidden saints (who simply didn't yet know they were saints). Basically, then, the Primitives are right, that the preaching of the Gospel is just feeding sheep rather than God's means of saving them (yet they are still wrong if it is true that all were once children of wrath who had to at some point get saved).
•consistently uses Romans 9:22,23 as describing Hell when it is discussing earthly show of power to people on earth.
Nobody has ever seen "hardened" Pharaoh or "blinded" Israel[ites] go to Hell!
Even in a framework of unconditional election, God could save ("unharden", "unblind") them after that purpose was fulfilled.
•Insists God really gives a "genuine" offer of life, to the non-elect (who thus can be "held responsible" for "freely rejecting it") when God never intended to save them (and intentionally blinded them) [single predestinationists, mainly]
Just like they have pointed out in the non-Calvinists when confrontd with "why does one believe and not the other", the Calvinists fudge around the issue, arguing an "effectual call" when they do begin hearing His voice, bearing fruit, etc. But that still doesn't answer the problem: were they ever blind or not? did they always hear His voice, or not? Other two points, they just reiterate their position. Eventually, you might get something like "you guys are just using reason". Most often, the conversation is shifted back to "why does one believe and not another" as the ultimate clincher for Calvinism.
The conclusion: this argument really doesn't have an earthly solution. (Both sides acknowledge "it's above us" at different times) We should just realize that Augustine of Hippo opened up a can of worms by going beyond the simple Gospel of "man is lost, yet Christ saves" into trying to deeply hypothesize the timeless mechanics of election. It's just another distraction for us to be arguing with each oter over, rather than just preaching the Gospel to the lost.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
There's a good reason why it gets construed that way. The only alternative explanation is ludicrous. Either one makes the Arminian "choice" because there's something good in you that makes you inclined to choose right, or it's all a matter of pure chance. (Chance being either something totally random, such as you made the right choice because that's just how the brain chemicals happaned to turn out -- or you made the right choice because you were shaped by environmental factors over which you had no control, such as upbringing, where you were born, etc.)
Your problems with Calvinsism, on the other hand, are mostly born from your misunderstanding of what Calvinism is all about. But regardless of the problems you seem to have with Calvinism, Calvinists (and other believers in election and predestination, such as myself) have an answer to this question, and one that does not involve chance or any credit on man's part. And, IMO, the Calvinist answer is far more Biblical - it requires none of the speculation that I see made by Arminians.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]
Ray Berrian
New Member
Harald,
Thank you for the explanation.
Thank you for the explanation.
Yelsew,
Samuel already made this point, but in case you need a bit more detail:
hagiazo {hag-ee-ad'-zo}
from hagios; verb
AV - sanctify 26, hallow 2, be holy 1; 29
1) to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow (hallow means "to make holy")
2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
The word translated "holy":
hagios {hag'-ee-os}
from hagos; adjective
AV - holy 161, saints 61, Holy One 4, misc 3; 229
1) most holy thing, a saint (sanctified one)
Samuel already made this point, but in case you need a bit more detail:
The words translated "sanctified" are:
hagiazo {hag-ee-ad'-zo}
from hagios; verb
AV - sanctify 26, hallow 2, be holy 1; 29
1) to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow (hallow means "to make holy")
2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
The word translated "holy":
hagios {hag'-ee-os}
from hagos; adjective
AV - holy 161, saints 61, Holy One 4, misc 3; 229
1) most holy thing, a saint (sanctified one)
Oh, and how could I forget, "you don't understand our system" is the other way out of it. All we do is give you back what you've been giving to us at different times, but the doctrine keeps shifting like smoke in the air, so everything we say: Oh, but that's not what we believe". But then you affirm it later on.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
Because you're forcing it into this "it can only be either this or that". What don't you cite "His ways are not our ways (above our understanding) then? No, it has to be election and preterition or it's nothing at all. Who's speculating?
Because once we're born into this fallen state, it is inevitable that we will sin. In your line of reasoning, a person doesn't even have to be born to be sent to Hell (And I know there are some Calvinists who believe that, and some don't). But in the actual picture of the judgement to Hell, it's their works they are judged by, not Adam's.
So in that reasoning, Him holding us responsible for Adam's sin is just an indirect means of having a reason to damn people, and have mercy on just a few "whomever He will". The problem in this, is it seems God starts out as wrath, and love is just an exception bestowed on a relative few, rather than starting out as Love, and showing wrrath to those who spurn that love. No, He must set it up so that people will be programmed to spurn His love, then look like they "deserve" it, when in reality, He just did it to show others something. It ignores that to whom much is given, much is expected. It ignores that God knows our frame that we are dust. It treats us either as some super beings on His level (outside of time), so maybe we did consciously make the choice with Adam in past eternity, as Origan taught, or as literally lifeless clay with no feelings (what does it matter if it is just burned with no chance of redemption. Who cares). This is the only time Calvinists ever admit something is above our comprehension. To close the argument when they have the last word, not realizing they had already gone way past the unsearchable (such as how "God's eternal (above time) decrees are always played out in the course of history (time)" which in our frail understanding gets distorted into a script the way it is attempted to be explained) in posing these "questions" that only they can have the "answer" for.
But don't forget, you have God damning people by "blinding" them to keep them from ever repenting. Would that be necessary if they were born blind in the first place? THIS was the point, and once again, we have gone right off of that into reiterating what you think are your strong points to win the argument.
You're the only ones asking it. That's like the opposite of a straw man-- you're posing all these deep questions fixed in such a way that they can only be explained with a pre-conceived belief in unconditional election, and then always presuming triumph because the other side doesn't answer it the way you want. (Then you accuse US of going by unscriptural reason!) THIS is my point, and you all should admit that things may not be as cut and dry as you have them so meticulously laid out.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Your correct in asserting that we often do make the arguement that Arminians don't understand our point of view. Why? Because most of you consistantly misinterpret, misapply, and misunderstand our beliefs. How can we make intelligent arguement about a system of belief that we don't understand? We can't, which is the reason we are constantly correcting your misapplication of our beliefs. Yes, it must seem like "shifting smoke" to one who has no grasp on it, but let me assure you it is a ancient, well established system of belief (much more so than Arminiamism).
Look back through some of the posts by Ray and Yelsew and see how many times they assert they we don't believe that men can refuse the gospel presentation. They are confused and misguided about our beliefs, thus they are not arguing against us but against a "staw man" (to use your term) that they have contructed out of ignorance.
Let me present case and point:
You say:
Yes, the scripture speaks of hardening of hearts and "blinding" them as you put it. But that is the burden for your system not ours. I believe that God's hardening or blinding spoken of in scriptue is not active but passive. He allows them to follow their own depravity, he passes over them, as Rom 1 teaches he "gives them over to there own lusts." It's not as if God is actively deceiving people, He does not need to. We, if left to ourselves, will do our own deceiving. But again these passages are more of a problem for your system than ours seeing that they assert God's sovereignty over and above human free will.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
You believe as you wish npetreley, the "top down view" is that when a persons persuasion changes from sinfulness, to Godliness, the person by virtue of the fact of change, is separated from the former sinfulness by belief alone.
How one's persuasion is changed is a matter of the human spiritually processing information and formulating a belief. If you needed help to make the change, that's OK. But I needed evidence upon which to base a conscious decision that I willingly made to submit myself to Christ Jesus.
Yes, perhaps I'm just like Thomas the doubter. But Thomas arrived at the same belief as all the others, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. The only belief necessary to eternal life. When he did, he became an effective witness for Jesus, and His spirit was Sanctified by his belief!
How one's persuasion is changed is a matter of the human spiritually processing information and formulating a belief. If you needed help to make the change, that's OK. But I needed evidence upon which to base a conscious decision that I willingly made to submit myself to Christ Jesus.
Yes, perhaps I'm just like Thomas the doubter. But Thomas arrived at the same belief as all the others, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. The only belief necessary to eternal life. When he did, he became an effective witness for Jesus, and His spirit was Sanctified by his belief!
Adam's fall did not give us sin
it gave us a sin nature
Damnation is by our own actions, and until a certain age or mental competence we are all sinless - until we say that first "No"
Be it in the situation of wanting a toy, or not wanting to eat strained spinach, or even not wanting to leave a warm bed, or not coming when our parents call.
That curse is something mankind groans under - after all man is inherently after his own personal welfare, but we form democratic societies in some cases - why we because we have reason - reason does not allow man to chuck off the curse - we can struggle against it - deny its existence - justify it - reason is not the cure for our sin nature - Christ is.
However, Reason can allow a man to sidestep what appears to be a (single) sinful act - and do what is right - hence there will be those who cry Lord Lord, we did all this stuff in your name; and He will reply Begone I never knew thee
Arminians and other people are not saying we do anything save choose God, based entirely on His actions in our lives. But remember there is an opposing team - and those who do deeds in the dark, rather then admitting them in the light, will stay in the dark.
Confession is a problem in todays church
I would take a page from the Catholic book and install confessors - but not that these confessors forgive sin - but they help enable man to confess unto God
Im starting to ramble remember
sin is not sin nature
But curious if you thought we wouldnt take by Adam all men fell - then why wont you take by Jesus ALL MEN are made alive?
____________________
Post edited to remove comments. Watch it, Sularis.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
it gave us a sin nature
Damnation is by our own actions, and until a certain age or mental competence we are all sinless - until we say that first "No"
Be it in the situation of wanting a toy, or not wanting to eat strained spinach, or even not wanting to leave a warm bed, or not coming when our parents call.
That curse is something mankind groans under - after all man is inherently after his own personal welfare, but we form democratic societies in some cases - why we because we have reason - reason does not allow man to chuck off the curse - we can struggle against it - deny its existence - justify it - reason is not the cure for our sin nature - Christ is.
However, Reason can allow a man to sidestep what appears to be a (single) sinful act - and do what is right - hence there will be those who cry Lord Lord, we did all this stuff in your name; and He will reply Begone I never knew thee
Arminians and other people are not saying we do anything save choose God, based entirely on His actions in our lives. But remember there is an opposing team - and those who do deeds in the dark, rather then admitting them in the light, will stay in the dark.
Confession is a problem in todays church
I would take a page from the Catholic book and install confessors - but not that these confessors forgive sin - but they help enable man to confess unto God
Im starting to ramble remember
sin is not sin nature
But curious if you thought we wouldnt take by Adam all men fell - then why wont you take by Jesus ALL MEN are made alive?
____________________
Post edited to remove comments. Watch it, Sularis.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
We're doing the exact same thing you do to our belief. Dealing with what it leads to. Your calim we do nounderstand it is just another way to claim triumph by default.
Plus, the Church went over four centuries without arguing election and assuming it must lead to preterition, and did just fine. Like I said, it was Augustine who opened up a can of worms.
Yes, he "gives people over to there own lusts." (another reason for hardening) but when you take those scriptures teaching on His eartly purpose on hardening a people, and say they don't believe because He blinded them "so they would not see and believe", (which changes their course, as if they would have believed) and extend this to eternity, then it does suggest that God is actively deceiving people. (And Calvin himself saw this and taught it. It's your camp that has tried to soften down his original position to match scripture a bit more)
[ January 23, 2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
Rom 5 teaches otherwise. It teaches that we become sinner (and thus condemned) in the same way that we become righteous. If we became sinners by our own actions, then we must become righteous by our own actions. The hope for salvation is found in that, since we did not become sinners by our own actions (but rather by the actions of our corporate head Adam) so we do not become righteous by our own actions but rather by the actions of our corporate head Christ.
We take both because of Romans 5. But Romans 5 clearly teaches that the "all" are "all in Adam" and "all in Christ."
But not even you believe that "All men are made alive in Christ" since you are not a universalist. YOU believe that "All" is limited to those "in Christ." You should likewise believe that "All" is limited to those "in Adam" which are all of us.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Please give me the date and time when Yelsew asserted that "we don't believe that men can refuse the gospel presentation".
Yelsew has been very very consistant in declaring that man has not only the ability, but also the right to refuse the gospel presentation...at man's own peril. Man must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah in order to receive Salvation! The Gospel presentation tells man about Jesus and about salvation and about Christian life. It is the source of information upon which one decides for one's self whether or not to believe.
Calvinism says that according to the gospel of election, man does not have that right or that ability.
Yelsew says that "whosoever" means every human who has ever walked on this earth, has the right, the capability, and the responsibility to choose whether or not to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. That choice determines whether or not one receives eternal life or faces the second death.
Believe it or not!
John 6:44. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:65. "And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.''"
What do the above verses mean?
Romans 3:
9. What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
11. there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.
12. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.''
13. "Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit''; "The poison of asps is under their lips'';
14. "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.''
15. "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16. destruction and misery are in their ways;
17. and the way of peace they have not known.''
18. "There is no fear of God before their eyes.''
John 6:65. "And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.''"
What do the above verses mean?
Romans 3:
9. What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
11. there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.
12. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.''
13. "Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit''; "The poison of asps is under their lips'';
14. "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.''
15. "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16. destruction and misery are in their ways;
17. and the way of peace they have not known.''
18. "There is no fear of God before their eyes.''
Rufus
Ray Berrian
New Member
Npetreley,
In Romans 11 God is speaking through the Apostle Paul telling his hearers that not all Israel will be saved. There will be elect persons saved but not in the predestinarian sense of the word. This election will be according to His foreknowledge. [vs.2]
Grace will save these believers and not works, as we all know and believe.
God will blind the non-elect but not in an ungodly sense of the word. Under the former covenant in Isaiah 65:2 & 12;Isaiah 66:3 & 4 and Hosea 4:6 you will find God reaching out to the Jews but they as always in general, are a rebellious people. He calls but they do not answer. He speaks but they will not hear. They choose the ungodly ways of man, but not at the Lord's bidding. In fact, He says, 'you choose that wherein I delight not.' Under the New Covenant God is again reaching out in grace to His lost people. [Romans 10:21; Acts 7:51.
Only after God's call throughout all the generations, does He blind them and darken their eyes. In other words, after the call to repentance, and after their hearing of their salvation, does God seal their fate, if you will. This means, however, that some will be saved, 'the elect through grace.'
Notice also Proverbs 1:23-33 and II Chronicles 30:8.
Only after the Lord strives with people does He blind their eyes making them darkened.
In Romans 11 God is speaking through the Apostle Paul telling his hearers that not all Israel will be saved. There will be elect persons saved but not in the predestinarian sense of the word. This election will be according to His foreknowledge. [vs.2]
Grace will save these believers and not works, as we all know and believe.
God will blind the non-elect but not in an ungodly sense of the word. Under the former covenant in Isaiah 65:2 & 12;Isaiah 66:3 & 4 and Hosea 4:6 you will find God reaching out to the Jews but they as always in general, are a rebellious people. He calls but they do not answer. He speaks but they will not hear. They choose the ungodly ways of man, but not at the Lord's bidding. In fact, He says, 'you choose that wherein I delight not.' Under the New Covenant God is again reaching out in grace to His lost people. [Romans 10:21; Acts 7:51.
Only after God's call throughout all the generations, does He blind them and darken their eyes. In other words, after the call to repentance, and after their hearing of their salvation, does God seal their fate, if you will. This means, however, that some will be saved, 'the elect through grace.'
Notice also Proverbs 1:23-33 and II Chronicles 30:8.
Only after the Lord strives with people does He blind their eyes making them darkened.