-
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!
What Is Arminianism?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Non sequitar. One could also say that the potter in Jeremiah goes very well with the potter in Romans, but you don't agree with that, right? Why should this example be different.Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Brother Ray,
John chapter 11 and Ephesians chapter 2 go very well together.
Ken
ScottEmerson
Active Member
It would be disingenuous and totally lacking in integrity, and therefore impossible, for God to command or invite someone to do something that He did not make it possible for that person to do (Acts 17:30; Mt. 6:33 and 11:28-30).
"Note Peter’s words to Cornelius, ‘Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him’ (Acts 10:34). The many appeals to men to seek God often are dismissed by Calvinists as merely symbolic rather than authentic, on the plea that man’s depravity makes it impossible for him to comply with God’s commands and appeals. Failure to recognize hyperbole, a frequent device in Biblical literature, has involved many an erroneous definition of human depravity that makes God’s appeals and exhortations ludicrous, if not shamefully insincere." (Robert Shank, Elect in the Son; p. 204.)
"Note Peter’s words to Cornelius, ‘Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him’ (Acts 10:34). The many appeals to men to seek God often are dismissed by Calvinists as merely symbolic rather than authentic, on the plea that man’s depravity makes it impossible for him to comply with God’s commands and appeals. Failure to recognize hyperbole, a frequent device in Biblical literature, has involved many an erroneous definition of human depravity that makes God’s appeals and exhortations ludicrous, if not shamefully insincere." (Robert Shank, Elect in the Son; p. 204.)
Primitive Baptist,
I skipped the posts past your statement, "You think you have to add your will to it. It's disgusting!" so I could reply.
Do you call the word of the Sovreign God disgusting?
The last invitation in the Scriptures that He gave us says, "Whosoever WILL may come--!"
Those are simple words with only one meaning.
"God said it and that settles it whether you believe it or not!" I do not know who deserves the credit for that quote but it is so true.
The opposite of the belief that the 'elect' are predestined for salvation is that God created the rest intending to send them to hell, Jesus never intending to draw them to Himself as He promised in John 12:32. That would make Jesus a liar!!!
[Post edited to remove blasphemy remark. That will not be tolerated here. Clean it up and respond in a proper manner.]
[ September 21, 2002, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
KenH
Well-Known Member
Scott,
The last I heard Robert Shank was a Church of Christ member(the denomination I left that teaches baptismal regeneration) and I have read his book, Life in the Son. You certainly will not sway me by any of his arguments against Calvinism. He's already failed with his false teaching with me.
Ken
The last I heard Robert Shank was a Church of Christ member(the denomination I left that teaches baptismal regeneration) and I have read his book, Life in the Son. You certainly will not sway me by any of his arguments against Calvinism. He's already failed with his false teaching with me.
Ken
KenH
Well-Known Member
Your statment is false. The opposite of God saving people by His choice is to teach that God the Creator reacts to man and is subject to man's will.
And, you should not call Jesus a liar, my friend, because if you are wrong(and I believe you are Scripturally) that is what you have done.
Ken
[ September 21, 2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
I think this statement shows how people just don't think biblically about things. Consider the following:
Leviticus 18:5 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Here are two clear commands, which by Scott's standards are disingenuous. Yet how do we call the words of YHWH and the words of Jesus Christ disingenuous and therefore lacking in integrity? That is an unconscionable statement. The reality is that there are all kinds of commands in Scripture that are impossible to keep, not because the law is bad (2 Cor 3) but because man is unable to keep the Law. Anyone who says otherwise simply isn't reading Scripture and letting is speak.
Again, the call goes out to get past the rhetoric and pat phrases and what people have told you and start thinking about what you are saying.
So was Jesus lying in JOhn 12:32 or in John 6:44? In John 6:44 he says that no one can come except he is drawn but that that person will be raised up at the last day. If you use Scripture in the way you do, how do you avoid universalism? It is clear that not all are raised up at the last day to eternal life as John 6:44 promises to all who are drawn. Yet you say that Christ draws all men. Which verse is true and how do we know?
I think there is a very simple explanation. One I have posted before, and one that preserves the integrity of both statements. JOhn 12 is a reference to Jews and Greeks, that Christ will not call simply Jews but will also call Greeks since those, in the context, are the ones who want to see him but don't get to at that point.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
That's not an argument. It's some sort of ad hominem.Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Scott,
The last I heard Robert Shank was a Church of Christ member(the denomination I left that teaches baptismal regeneration) and I have read his book, Life in the Son. You certainly will not sway me by any of his arguments against Calvinism. He's already failed with his false teaching with me.
Ken
Ray Berrian
New Member
Scott Emmerson,
Really, you have to do much, much better than using John 11 and Ephesians 2 in order to mend your Calvinistic fences.
In John 11 Jesus is speaking about Lazarus physical death and resurrection; in Ephesians the Apostle Paul is speaking about our spiritual death and resurrection. The first reference is focused on physical resurrection and the latter on our spiritual awakening. These ideas and factual events in our lives are worlds apart from each other. Trying to merge them is you struggle and error. These of physical and spiritual death and resurrection are not connected by either of the writers. We know why you make such a reach and effort. You and your fellow believers are using Lazarus as merely a parable or explanation of the ideas you are trying to formulate and convey to us. This is clearly unwarranted by way of Biblical expostion of truth. because of our faith in Christ.
Really, you have to do much, much better than using John 11 and Ephesians 2 in order to mend your Calvinistic fences.
In John 11 Jesus is speaking about Lazarus physical death and resurrection; in Ephesians the Apostle Paul is speaking about our spiritual death and resurrection. The first reference is focused on physical resurrection and the latter on our spiritual awakening. These ideas and factual events in our lives are worlds apart from each other. Trying to merge them is you struggle and error. These of physical and spiritual death and resurrection are not connected by either of the writers. We know why you make such a reach and effort. You and your fellow believers are using Lazarus as merely a parable or explanation of the ideas you are trying to formulate and convey to us. This is clearly unwarranted by way of Biblical expostion of truth. because of our faith in Christ.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Please, delete 'because of our faith in Christ.' My mistake.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Um...Ray... I wasn't the one who was mending the two passages together. I was arguing against it.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Scott Emmerson,
Really, you have to do much, much better than using John 11 and Ephesians 2 in order to mend your Calvinistic fences.
In John 11 Jesus is speaking about Lazarus physical death and resurrection; in Ephesians the Apostle Paul is speaking about our spiritual death and resurrection. The first reference is focused on physical resurrection and the latter on our spiritual awakening. These ideas and factual events in our lives are worlds apart from each other. Trying to merge them is you struggle and error. These of physical and spiritual death and resurrection are not connected by either of the writers. We know why you make such a reach and effort. You and your fellow believers are using Lazarus as merely a parable or explanation of the ideas you are trying to formulate and convey to us. This is clearly unwarranted by way of Biblical expostion of truth. because of our faith in Christ.
I'm on YOUR side, remember?
Ray Berrian
New Member
Sorry Scott. Ray
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
When you first "convince yourself" that redefining the bible is "ok", it is nothing to then 'redefine the teachings of others " as your doctrines require.
Arminians are those that actually believe "God So Loved The World". And then do not "redefine" the term.
Period.
In Christ,
Bob