Theology that leads to rebellion?

[glfredrick]

It's easy to tear down an argument that was never stated. Here is the original statement in context which bears little resemblance to what you said...

"I think theology may cause some people to focus more on doctrine then how they live their life and their personal relationship with God."

How much information does a child need to know about their parents in order to have a good relationship with them?

What are you responding to? Nothing of the type in this thread.

 

[glfredrick]

Oh, I don't know; who's to say how the council might have reacted if Arminius had been able to present his argument himself?

The argument is never about people, but rather doctrines and the scriptural basis for them (except on this board, where anything goes).

 

[Don]

The argument is never about people, but rather doctrines and the scriptural basis for them (except on this board, where anything goes).

If Arminius had been able to present his argument, as opposed to the "hyper-Armenians" (as you pointed out in a previous message), it's entirely possible that the Synod may have been swayed in an altogether different direction...perhaps even one that neither of us could predict.

Regarding the main point of this discussion: As I stated before, I'll give this some study when I get home tonight (I'm in a different time zone, resulting in about a 5-hour difference), and see what I come up with.
edited to add: Specifically, post #9, where I mentioned James 4:8

 

[glfredrick]

Guess what, this freewiller trusts that God has decided who to save and set down the law to man as to how it is accomplished: "Believe on the Lord and you shall be saved".

Anything that contradicts what God has clearly spelled out over and over again in His word is "rebellion".

It is you who challenges the sovernity of God when you say that He can't possibly allow man to choose for himself to believe or not believe. That an individual man's eternal destiny depends on that man's choice to believe or reject, while the destiny of humankind and the universe still resides in the hand of an Almighty God.

And even if I should be wrong, I serve this God:

Neh 9:17 And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.

You Calvies need to calm down and find better things to worry about than my "rebellion" cause its already covered! When we reach the end, God will sort us out!

You realize, of course (well, actually you don't), that the verse you posted supports a sovereign view of God?

A people, who hardened themselves against God, have not yet exhausted the election of God who will do with them what He wishes. God did not forsake them based on their rejection. His plans were otherwise... And so it is throughout the Scriptures, OT and NT.

Again, why this need to make sure on one's OWN that you are in good with God? Can God not do the choosing? That is, in essence, what you are suggesting.

Oh, and I'm not even trying to toss about invectives here. What I am doing is pointing out that there are a lot of people trying to help God do His work, in large part because they are fearful that if they do not find a way to reconcile with God, God might pass them by.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My post was not about this paticular quote, but what I have heard through the years.

However, how can a person even begin to have a personal relationship with God without true doctrine?



It is a dangerous course that does not major on doctrine.

YES! Isnt it interesting that folks dont see that in Scriptures & are far to willing to bypass doctrine...even the theologians! Simply incredible.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Again, why this need to make sure on one's OWN that you are in good with God? Can God not do the choosing?

do you believe that a human can have assurance of their salvation? If so, why the need to be sure? Can't God do the choosing and you simply submit to your own condemnation(or salvation, if that be the case. but what value would salvation have without assurance?)?

It is the history of creation that God acts and man responds.

Find one passage of scripture where God deals with man that He doesn't expect a response. You can't. God ALWAYS expects man to respond. He doesn't force man to respond in any particular direction, or Adam wouldn't have sinned and Israel wouldn't be still be fighting over the Gaza strip.

It is you who sets God to responding to Himself, not I. And if the entirity of creation is only God talking to Himself, why bother? Unless you are saying God needs man in order to show His glory, but then, man would have some value and that doesn't line up with what I've been hearing lately from Cal side of the board.

 

[Old Union Brother]

I have neglected to reply to a lot of the post on here lately. But I now feel compelled too. Even when I was a babe in Christ I did not find it hard to believe:
1. In the doctrine of election by grace

2. In the doctrine of original sin, and man’s impotency to rescue himself from the fallen state he is in by nature by his on freewill ability.

3.That sinners are called converted, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and all are so regenerated and born again by the spirit of God shall never fall finally away.

4 That sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

If we believe the scriptures:
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. If He is the author and finisher of our faith how can deny that repentance is the works of God and that He starts repentance and finishes it? I'll answer that, we can't.

I love the Lord, I love his precepts, and I love his people.

A fellow servant in Christ

 

[quantumfaith]

You realize, of course (well, actually you don't), that the verse you posted supports a sovereign view of God?

A people, who hardened themselves against God, have not yet exhausted the election of God who will do with them what He wishes. God did not forsake them based on their rejection. His plans were otherwise... And so it is throughout the Scriptures, OT and NT.

Again, why this need to make sure on one's OWN that you are in good with God? Can God not do the choosing? That is, in essence, what you are suggesting.

Oh, and I'm not even trying to toss about invectives here. What I am doing is pointing out that there are a lot of people trying to help God do His work, in large part because they are fearful that if they do not find a way to reconcile with God, God might pass them by.

glfrederick,

I, for one, would greatly appreciate if you would refrain from any implication that those who do not hold to the DoG in any way diminish or think lightly of the sovereignty of God. That is simply false. The non-cals simply view the expression of God and His sovereignty differently than do you. Please.

 

[mets65]

I just can't accept that Christ only died for certain people. I John 2:2, how do you refute that verse? I think the concept of election through Gods eyes is so complex none of us have the ability to understand it.

 

[Robert Snow]

Guess what, this freewiller trusts that God has decided who to save and set down the law to man as to how it is accomplished: "Believe on the Lord and you shall be saved".

Anything that contradicts what God has clearly spelled out over and over again in His word is "rebellion".

It is you who challenges the sovernity of God when you say that He can't possibly allow man to choose for himself to believe or not believe. That an individual man's eternal destiny depends on that man's choice to believe or reject, while the destiny of humankind and the universe still resides in the hand of an Almighty God.

And even if I should be wrong, I serve this God:

Neh 9:17 And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.

You Calvies need to calm down and find better things to worry about than my "rebellion" cause its already covered! When we reach the end, God will sort us out!

Exactly!

It is the Calvinists who are in rebellion to what the plain teaching of the Word of God is, IMHO!

 

[Luke2427]

Someone in discussing Limited Atonement told me that chances would be great that some of my kids would not be chosen as elect....Id say that constituted fear.

Yea, that's the kind of stuff we often hear from these with no nameable theology.

My friends and I joke about the substance of their arguments.

We say it goes something like this:

"RAPE! SERVETUS!!"

That's their arguments against he DoG.

If God is truly sovereign then he is responsible for every rape (rape is always the sin that they like to bring up, child molestation is a close second) and Calvin burned Servetus.

That is usually the full sum of the substance of their arguments.

 

[Rippon]

Scriptre From 1984 NIV

I just can't accept that Christ only died for certain people.

So you are saying He died for those who have never heard the Gospel --never heard of Jesus Christ. You are saying that He died in the room of,in the stead of, everyone now in perdition and those who will end up there?! Nonsense.

I John 2:2, how do you refute that verse?

A related passage is John (note --same author) 11:51b-52:"Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God,to bring together and make them one.'

Christ died not only for those among the Jews,but from among Gentiles scattered throughout the world.

Rev.5:9b :"with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Rev.7:9b :"from every nation,tribe,people and language

Rev.14:3 speaks of the redeemed from the earth.In the next verse it says "They were purchased from among men."

The propitiation of the sins of each and every person who has lived and shall live is totally wrong. It means that there has been the removal of divine wrath on every person --head-for-head. And that is utterly untrue.

Every person in hell and going there is under divine wrath. Their sins have not been propitiated by Christ. God's wrath is being satisfied by their miseries in everlasting torment. Christ did not appease His Father's wrath once on the cross and then they had to pay for their own sins by an eternity in Hell. There is no double payment.

I think the concept of election through Gods eyes is so complex none of us have the ability to understand it.

None of us will understand it in its entirety. But yet to deny the doctrine is futile and foolish. What has been rervealed in Holy Writ needs to be taught and proclaimed.

Don't think you are wiser than God and hide this doctrine because it's hard to understand and might confuse some folks.

 

[Don]

That is true... My statement on Augustine/Pelagius was not speaking directly to Arminius. It was speaking to some who post in favor of human free will on this board.

He could not have swayed the Synod of Dort even had he lived because he invented a category of grace that does not exist in Scripture and he adopted a former heretical position, even if softened, in Pelagianism. That was the ruling of the Synod. to be fair, those who presented at Dort had carried Arminius' doctrines farther than he did, just as they extended Augustine's and Calvin's (Luther, etc., all of whom were for DoG) work farther than the original doctrine, carried by Scripture, would allow.

Okay, as promised, did some research. Not anything in depth, but some.

First, I'd like to ask for your sources on Arminius' adoption of Pelagianism. Let's be fair: Pelagius adopted the position that man was born innocent. Nothing in Arminius' teaching ever supported this position. True Arminians acknowledge that man is born with a sin nature.

Second, everything I've found so far that would qualify as "objective" (i.e., whether Calvinistic or Arminian in origin, objectively looks at Arminius, his life, and his theological studies, instead of approaching from a Calvinistic predetermined (pun intended) viewpoint of "Arminius is wrong") indicates that Arminius rejected Pelagius.

Since no system of Arminianism denies original sin or total depravity, then identifying Arminius with Pelagius is incorrect. Unfortunately, this identification has existed since the Synod at Dort, and continues today...despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Robert Snow]

So you are saying He died for those who have never heard the Gospel --never heard of Jesus Christ. You are saying that He died in the room of,in the stead of, everyone now in perdition and those who will end up there?! Nonsense.

It's unbelief that sends a person to hell, not at all what you think.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

 

[Rippon]

It's unbelief that sends a person to hell, not at all what you think.

Why don't you take the time to actually read what I have posted? In that way you would not say some silly things. I was responding to mets65 :"So you are saying He died for those who have never heard the Gospel --never heard of Jesus Christ? You are saying that He died in the room of,in the stead of,everyone in perdition and those who will end up there?! Nonsense."

 

[Rippon]

The propitiation of the sins of each and every person who has lived and shall live is totally wrong. It means that there has been the removal of divine wrath on every person --head-for-head. And that is utterly untrue.

Every person in hell and going there is under divine wrath. Their sins have not been propitiated by Christ. God's wrath is being satisfied by their miseries in everlasting torment. Christ did not appease His Father's wrath once on the cross and then they had to pay for their own sins by an eternity in Hell. There is no double payment.

From a hymn of Augustus Toplady (1740-1778) :Whence This Fear and Unbelief:

"If thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine:
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my wounded Surety's hand,
And then again at mine."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I just can't accept that Christ only died for certain people. I John 2:2, how do you refute that verse? I think the concept of election through Gods eyes is so complex none of us have the ability to understand it.

You know Mets, thats understandable....I used that as an argument against God for years along with his not being a fair god....look at wars & floods & poverty & all sorts of perceived injustice. Horrendous! But then I look at the Mercy position....how about that element of God. There is nobody on this board that truly believes God mints out injustice (particularly to babies). However, we as limited human beings, we just cant fathom the full mind of God (just read Job). Therefore there is one irrefutable truth in this ole world..."There is A God" and He isn't me" ..... after that's clearly established Mets my friend, then you can begin to understand God's Great Sovereignty. He is in control & not you. Then your fears pass away about those not elected, the babies, etc. Until you can relinquish yourself to His Sovereignty & Majesty, you are just another foul thing screaming in the wilderness. The Lord is both Justice & Mercy....Forgiveness & Love abundant.

Blessings to you.:jesus:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Okay, as promised, did some research. Not anything in depth, but some.

First, I'd like to ask for your sources on Arminius' adoption of Pelagianism. Let's be fair: Pelagius adopted the position that man was born innocent. Nothing in Arminius' teaching ever supported this position. True Arminians acknowledge that man is born with a sin nature.

Second, everything I've found so far that would qualify as "objective" (i.e., whether Calvinistic or Arminian in origin, objectively looks at Arminius, his life, and his theological studies, instead of approaching from a Calvinistic predetermined (pun intended) viewpoint of "Arminius is wrong") indicates that Arminius rejected Pelagius.

Since no system of Arminianism denies original sin or total depravity, then identifying Arminius with Pelagius is incorrect. Unfortunately, this identification has existed since the Synod at Dort, and continues today...despite the evidence to the contrary.

Correct....Mr P's big argument was with Augustine & his Book "Confessions"....have any of you Theologians read that yet? To Pelagian, The Confessions was a complete assault on Free Will.....this is where he (Augustine) builds his thesis on Gods Sovereignty that we Reformed use today. Arminius came much later & he never disputed original sin.

 

[kyredneck]

...glf, I agree with your theory that this is some of the reasons for their rejection of the truths of God's Sovereign Grace. Actually there are several reasons, IMO.

IMO, hoi polloi, the many, the most, the majority of His redeemed, washed in the blood, born from above children, believe that there are going to be very very few that 'make it' to heaven.

I am convinced that the majority of the lump of mankind, from Adam on, belong to the Lord. After all, God is stronger than the Devil, and He has been VICTORIOUS, NOT DEFEATED. It is Christ that died.

 

[HankD]

I am convinced that the majority of the lump of mankind, from Adam on, belong to the Lord. After all, God is stronger than the Devil, and He has been VICTORIOUS, NOT DEFEATED. It is Christ that died.

Could very well be.

Revelation 7

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

HankD​