Armi-Calvinist?

Do you mean to tell me that all the people that got saved in revivals through the years and none in shopping malls or sports stadiums is just a big coincidence? Wow! Were those evangelists ever wasting their time. (sigh)

Rom. 10:13-15

 

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Humm...just like a freewiller...always free to tell us what to say and not to say.

well...he knows..and I know..just as you know. Or..i hope you know. in other words...we know when we have understanding to know.


Let me show you mans sin nature...i just posted tonight.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3725/11.html#000154

IN Christ...James

 

Jack,

We certainly are justified by our works, but not unto salvation. I'm sure you will agree with that. We are not saved by our works. But justification is not the same as sanctification. Justification is a salvific term. Our works are evidence of our justification (salvation). Christians will perform good works. In fact, we were intended for good works:

So not only did God call Abraham, He also "prepared beforehand" that he would perform good works.

As far as your contention that, "He did this knowing that Abraham would do what he did" we're back to the foreknowledge view, a conclusion that I just cannot see in the text.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Humm...just like a freewiller...always free to tell us what to say and not to say.

well...he knows..and I know..just as you know. Or..i hope you know. in other words...we know when we have understanding to know.


Let me show you mans sin nature...i just posted tonight.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3725/11.html#000154

IN Christ...James [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmm....Just like a Calvinist to use double talk.

 

Jack,

We certainly are justified by our works, but not unto salvation. I'm sure you will agree with that. We are not saved by our works. But justification is not the same as sanctification. Justification is a salvific term. Our works are evidence of our justification (salvation). Christians will perform good works. In fact, we were intended for good works:

So not only did God call Abraham, He also "prepared beforehand" that he would perform good works.

As far as your contention that, "He did this knowing that Abraham would do what he did" we're back to the foreknowledge view, a conclusion that I just cannot see in the text. </font>[/QUOTE]How is conversion different than salvation? Don't they occur at the same time and mean the same thing?

 

Hello JackRUS.

Ok.

Did God have mercy at the expense of His justice or was a sacrifice of atonement also given? Why?

Would you care to explain 1 Sam 3:14 please JackRus?

He told me,"Whoever believes is saved." I believe. I believe He paid the penalty for my sin therefore my debt has been paid, nothing else is required, especially from me. I got that from scripture. It was by grace I was saved... I got that from scripture as well. Eph 2:8.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

I am not condemned because I believe He died for me and His death was all sufficient to procure my attendance in Heaven now and forever. I trust Him, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

How's that, what do you think? Your question, He died for your sins? sounds surprised.

You are surprised that one can believe and be saved and know it?

That is a work. You say the father of the faith worked? Cool. They oppose one another. JN 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Faith is a work and it is a work of God and He bestows it, by His grace, on whoever He choses to bestow it on.
HEB 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

No doubt ever enters my head has regards to my salvation. I take it as granted. The curtain was torn in two. God's Children are standing face to face with their Father.

john.

 

Thanks for the welcome Tom. I like your challenge. And thank you J.D. Your encouragement means a lot to me.

john.

 

Thanks for the encouragement. That's why I generally call those on the board here who are non-Calvinists free-willers instead of Arminians.

I haven't met an Arminian yet on these boards. There may be some here, but I don't see anyone defending what Arminius taught, so I have to assume the real Arminians (if they're here) are silent. The free-willers aren't defending Arminianism. They're defending semi-pelagianism.

 

I know there must be a technical distinction between an Arminian and a semi-Pelagian but to me they fit the same type of individual . I have said before that Arminius didn't really commit himself on the the 5th point . If you review the 5 points of the Remonstrants they definitively spell-out the views of many on the BB . And for those of you that don't know ( npetreley does ): the five propositions by Arminius' followers preceded the dreaded TULIP formulation . That does not mean that the truths summarized in TULIP were not proclaimed before . But what a handy tool for the average Reformed believer ! And , more importantly , there are scriptural proofs aplenty for them .

 

JackRUS said:

????

Did I confuse you? Not sure how this came up. point was that Abraham was first called to faith by God.* I never even used the word conversion in my previous post. But yet, conversion is the same as salvation. For clarity, here is how they are defined.

Sanctification = the progressive action of becoming more like Christ during a lifetime.

Salvation = the completed process that leads to right standing with God. (also called "conversion")

Justification = the act whereby an individual is imputed with the rigteousness of Christ, made possible by Christ's perfect obedience from birth to the cross.

Faith = the act whereby an individual places complete, irrevocable trust in Jesus Christ alone.

Repentance = the act whereby an individual makes a purposed decision to turn from sin and the dominion of Satan to God.

Regeneration = the act of God alone in which He breathes spiritual life into one (of His elect) who was spiritually dead and makes it possible for the individual to freely excercise repentance and faith.

* I believe Abraham's call was in keeping with his election and not based on God electing him based on His foreknowledge. Abraham was chosen before the foundation of world, just as are of God's elect.

 

Only one thing I would change here, doulos. "Salvation" sometimes has a future aspect in the Scripture. It is not always referring to the specific time of our conversion. This is why Peter could talk about the "end of your faith - the salvation of your souls." (1 Peter 1:9) This is obviously a reference to something future, not something past.

 

Calvibaptist wrote:

I am referring specifically to the sinner being brought into right standing with God. I believe this happens in a point and time set by the Father. Salvation certainly does have a future aspect, especially in the realm of progressive sanctification (Phil. 2:12-13). I was not stressing the future aspect in my response to JackRUS.

 

Thanks for the encouragement. That's why I generally call those on the board here who are non-Calvinists free-willers instead of Arminians.

I haven't met an Arminian yet on these boards. There may be some here, but I don't see anyone defending what Arminius taught, so I have to assume the real Arminians (if they're here) are silent. The free-willers aren't defending Arminianism. They're defending semi-pelagianism. </font>[/QUOTE]What's the difference between a non-Calvinist free will believer and an Arminian?

 

Thanks for the encouragement. That's why I generally call those on the board here who are non-Calvinists free-willers instead of Arminians.

I haven't met an Arminian yet on these boards. There may be some here, but I don't see anyone defending what Arminius taught, so I have to assume the real Arminians (if they're here) are silent. The free-willers aren't defending Arminianism. They're defending semi-pelagianism. </font>[/QUOTE]What's the difference between a non-Calvinist free will believer and an Arminian? </font>[/QUOTE]Its all a cover up

They are ALL semi or full pelagian. I have seen more of the full blown pelagianism posted on here the last few months then ever before.


In Christ..James

 

Thanks for the encouragement. That's why I generally call those on the board here who are non-Calvinists free-willers instead of Arminians.

I haven't met an Arminian yet on these boards. There may be some here, but I don't see anyone defending what Arminius taught, so I have to assume the real Arminians (if they're here) are silent. The free-willers aren't defending Arminianism. They're defending semi-pelagianism. </font>[/QUOTE]What's the difference between a non-Calvinist free will believer and an Arminian? </font>[/QUOTE]

Now here's a guy that likes to jump right in without bothering to read the first four pages of posts.

 

What's the difference between a non-Calvinist free will believer and an Arminian? </font>[/QUOTE]Here is a quote from the works of Arminius (emphasis mine):

Unless I've missed a post somewhere, the above contradicts every free-willer's opinion on this board. Free willers believe that, because we're made in God's image, we still retain the ability to "understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good", ex., accept the Gospel and be saved.

Here's another quote. In this case, Arminius responds to the claim that he said Christ died for all men. Arminius denies ever making such a claim. His response is really a lot of double-talk and squirming, but the bottom line is that Arminius did not believe that Christ died for every man, but that Christ suffered for every man.

I could go on, but if you just read Arminius for yourself, you'll see that what he taught is quite different than what the free willers on this board believe.

 

Exactly. Pelagius espoused that God would not command man to do anything unless He designed man with the ability to comply. Browse these boards. You will see that the free willers use this argument repeatedly.

Free willers also claim repeatedly that, even in our fallen state, we are only wounded and not dead. Because we are made in God's image, there is still enough good in each one of us to be able to choose Christ. This is pelagianism at worst, semi-pelagianism at best.

As I posted above, Arminius did not teach anything like this. Arminius states that man, in his fallen condition, is entirely unable to comprehend, will, or do anything good on his own steam.

I find it fascinating that the free willers call Calvinism heresy in light of the fact that they are pelagian or semi-pelagian. The world has been turned upside down. Bad has become good, and good has become bad.

 

I think I will follow npetrely's lead and stop referring to these folks on BB as Arminians. Free-willer is pretty good, but I want to use a label (don't we HATE labels!) that has "Baptist" in it, and "Free Will Baptist" is already taken by a demonination. Hmmm...

 

Okay...clarity needed.

Why are those who advocate free will placed in the Arminian camp? Let me provide two sources that can provide some useful information in search of that answer.

Ariminus' teachings were considered heretical by the church. But as heretical as his teaching were, his followers carried them to an extreme (give them an inch and they'll take a yard). At the Synod of Dort the followers of Arminius provided their five articles for review. They are now known as the "five articls of the Remonstrants." Who are the Remontrants? Click here. What are the "five articles"? Click here. The five articles (sometimes called the five points of Arminianism) define what is commonly referred to as, "historic Arminianism." If you are in the free will camp you will find some alarming similarity in your position to those of the Remonstrants. For those of you who will not click on the links, let me provide a brief history of the Remonstrants and their five articles:

History of the Remonstrants

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants

 

Ok.

Did God have mercy at the expense of His justice or was a sacrifice of atonement also given? Why?

Would you care to explain 1 Sam 3:14 please JackRus?

He told me,"Whoever believes is saved." I believe. I believe He paid the penalty for my sin therefore my debt has been paid, nothing else is required, especially from me. I got that from scripture. It was by grace I was saved... I got that from scripture as well. Eph 2:8.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

I am not condemned because I believe He died for me and His death was all sufficient to procure my attendance in Heaven now and forever. I trust Him, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

How's that, what do you think? Your question, He died for your sins? sounds surprised.

You are surprised that one can believe and be saved and know it?

That is a work. You say the father of the faith worked? Cool. They oppose one another. JN 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Faith is a work and it is a work of God and He bestows it, by His grace, on whoever He choses to bestow it on.
HEB 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

No doubt ever enters my head has regards to my salvation. I take it as granted. The curtain was torn in two. God's Children are standing face to face with their Father.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I agree with all that you say and I agree that you can know that you have eternal like (1 John 5:12-13).

But I am wondering about the limited list of folks that can do the same. That is what Limited Atonement supports is it not?

And I don't how your post lends any credence to your view of Limited Atonement.

And as for 1 Sam. 3:14, don't you know that these men were judged by an oath given by God after having countless opportunities to get saved earlier in life?

How does God's judgement about their not being covered by sacrifice preclude the possibility that they were not covered by sacrifices earlier in their life? I don't see the curse being given as retro-active to cover also those sacrifices. And I would argue that if their priestly sacrifices were not efficatious for them in the past, then they also would not have been for the people of Israel either since they were offered together as one. Unless of course unbelief disqualified them.

God said that He would judge “the house of Eli for ever because of their iniquity, and that Eli knew his sons were preparing a curse for themselves and did not prevent them.”

From F. Delitzsch and C. F. Keil – Commentary on the Old Testament

1 SAMUEL 2:27-36
Announcement of the judgment upon Eli and his house.

Before the Lord interposed in judgment, He sent a prophet (a “man of God,” as in Judg 13:6) to the aged Eli, to announce as a warning for all
ages the judgment which was about to fall upon the worthless priests of his house. In order to arouse Eli’s own conscience, he had pointed out to him, on the one hand, the grace manifested in the choice of his father’s house, i.e., the house of Aaron, to keep His sanctuary (vv. 27b and 28), and, on the other hand, the desecration of the sanctuary by the wickedness of his sons (v. 29). Then follows the sentence: The choice of the family of Aaron still stood fast, but the deepest disgrace would come upon the despisers of the Lord (v. 30): the strength of his house would be broken; all the
members of his house were to die early deaths. They were not, however, to be removed entirely from service at the altar, but to their sorrow were to survive the fall of the sanctuary (vv. 31-34).

But the Lord would raise up a faithful priest, and cause him to walk before His anointed, and from him all that were left of the house of Eli would be obliged to beg their bread (vv. 35, 36). To arrive at the true interpretation
of this announcement of punishment, we must picture to ourselves the historical circumstances that come into consideration here.

Eli the high priest was a descendant of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, as we may see from the fact that his great-grandson Ahimelech was “of the sons of Ithamar” (1 Chron 24:3). In perfect agreement with this, Josephus (Ant. v. 11, 5) relates, that after the high priest Ozi of the family of Eleazar, Eli of the family of Ithamar received the high-priesthood. The circumstances which led to the transfer of this honour from the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar are unknown. We cannot imagine it to have been occasioned by an extinction of the line of Eleazar, for the simple reason that, in the time of David, Zadok the descendant of Eleazar is spoken of as high priest along with Abiathar and Ahimelech, the descendants of Eli (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).

After the deposition of Abiathar he was reinstated by Solomon as sole high priest (1 Kings 2:27), and the dignity was transmitted to his descendants.

This fact also overthrows the conjecture of Clericus, that the transfer of the high-priesthood to Eli took place by the command of God on account of the grievous sins of the high priests of the line of Eleazar; for in that case Zadok would not have received this office again in connection with Abiathar. We have, no doubt, to search for the true reason in the circumstances of the times of the later judges, namely in the fact that at the death of the last high priest of the family of Eleazar before the time of Eli, the remaining son was not equal to the occasion, either because he was still an infant, or at any rate because he was too young and inexperienced, so that he could not enter upon the office, and Eli, who was probably related by marriage to the high priest’s family, and was no doubt a vigorous man, was compelled to take the oversight of the congregation; and, together with the supreme administration of the affairs of the nation as judge, received the post of high priest as well, and filled it till the time of his death, simply because in those troublous times there was not one of the
descendants of Eleazar who was able to fill the supreme office of judge, which was combined with that of high priest.

For we cannot possibly think of an unjust usurpation of the office of high priest on the part of Eli, since the very judgment denounced against him and his house presupposes that he had entered upon the office in a just and
upright way, and that the wickedness of his sons was all that was brought against him. For a considerable time after the death of Eli the highpriesthood lost almost all its significance. All Israel turned to Samuel, whom the Lord established as His prophet by means of revelations, and whom He also chose as the deliverer of His people. The tabernacle at
Shiloh, which ceased to be the scene of the gracious presence of God after the loss of the ark, was probably presided over first of all after Eli’s death by his grandson Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, as his successor in the highpriesthood.

He was followed in the time of Saul by his son Ahijah or Ahimelech, who gave David the shew-bread to eat at Nob, to which the tabernacle had been removed in the meantime, and was put to death by Saul in consequence, along with all the priests who were found there. His son Abiathar, however, escaped the massacre, and fled to David (1 Sam 22:9-20; 23:6). In the reign of David he is mentioned as high priest along with Zadok; but he was afterwards deposed by Solomon (2 Sam 15:24; 17:15; 19:12; 20:25; 1 Kings 2:27).

Different interpretations have been given of these verses. The majority of commentators understand them as signifying that the loss of the highpriesthood is here foretold to Eli, and also the institution of Zadok in the office. But such a view is too contracted, and does not exhaust the meaning of the words. The very introduction to the prophet’s words points
to something greater than this: “Thus saith the Lord, Did I reveal myself to thy father’s house, when they were in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh?” The ha interrogative is not used for μwOlv; (nonne), but is emphatic, as in Jer
31:20. The question is an appeal to Eli’s conscience, which he cannot deny, but is obliged to confirm. By Eli’s father’s house we are not to understand Ithamar and his family, but Aaron, from whom Eli was descended through Ithamar. God revealed himself to the tribe-father of Eli by appointing Aaron to be the spokesman of Moses before Pharaoh (Ex 4:14ff. and 27), and still more by calling Aaron to the priesthood, for which the way was prepared by the fact that, from the very beginning, God made use of Aaron, in company with Moses, to carry out His purpose of delivering Israel out of Egypt, and entrusted Moses and Aaron with the arrangements for the celebration of the passover (Ex 12:1,43). This occurred when they, the fathers of Eli, Aaron and his sons, were still in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh, i.e., still under Pharaoh’s rule.

Verse 28. “And did I choose him out of all the tribes for a priest to myself.” The interrogative particle is not to be repeated before rjæB;, but the construction becomes affirmative with the inf. abs. instead of the
perfect. “Him” refers back to “thy father” in v. 27, and signifies Aaron. The expression “for a priest” is still further defined by the clauses which follow: m’ `l[æ `hl;[;, “to ascend upon mine altar,” i.e., to approach my altar of
burnt-offering and perform the sacrificial worship; “to kindle incense,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy place, the principal feature in which was the daily kindling of the incense, which is mentioned instar omnium; “to
wear the ephod before me,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy of holies, which the high priest could only enter when wearing the ephod to
represent Israel before the Lord (Ex 28:12). “And have given to thy father’s house all the firings of the children of Israel” (see at Lev 1:9).

These words are to be understood, according to Deut 18:1, as signifying that the Lord had given to the house of Aaron, i.e., to the priesthood, the sacrifices of Jehovah to eat in the place of any inheritance in the land, according to the portions appointed in the sacrificial law in Lev 6-7, and Num 18.

Verse 29. With such distinction conferred upon the priesthood, and such careful provision made for it, the conduct of the priests under Eli was an inexcusable crime. “Why do ye tread with your feet my slain-offerings and meat-offerings, which I have commanded in the dwelling-place?” Slainoffering and meat-offering are general expressions embracing all the altarsacrifices.
ˆwO[m; is an accusative (“in the dwelling”), like tyiBæ, in the house.

“The dwelling” is the tabernacle. This reproof applied to the priests generally, including Eli, who had not vigorously resisted these abuses. The
words which follow, “and thou honourest thy sons more than me,” relate to Eli himself, and any other high priest who like Eli should tolerate the abuses of the priests. “To fatten yourselves with the first of every sacrificial gift of Israel, of my people.” `μ[æ serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, and is chosen for the purpose of giving greater prominence to the idea of `μ[æ (my people). tyviare, the first of every sacrificial gift (minchah, as in v. 17), which Israel offered as the nation of Jehovah, ought to have been given up to its God in the altar-fire because it was the best; whereas, according to vv. 15, 16, the sons of Eli took away the best for themselves.

1 SAMUEL 3:12-14

On that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house (see 1 Sam 2:30ff.), beginning and finishing it,” i.e., completely.

rB,Di rv,a}Ata, μyqihe, to set up the word spoken, i.e., to carry it out, or accomplish it. In v. 13 this word is communicated to Samuel, so far as its essential contents are concerned. God would judge “the house of Eli for ever because of the iniquity, that he knew his sons were preparing a curse for themselves and did not prevent them.” To judge on account of a crime,
is the same as to punish it. μl;wO[Ad[æ, i.e., without the punishment being ever stopped or removed. wOl llæq;, cursing themselves, i.e., bringing a curse upon themselves. “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that
the iniquity of the house of Eli shall not μai, a particle used in an oath, equivalent to assuredly not) be expiated by slain-offerings and meatofferings (through any kind of sacrifice) for ever.” The oath makes the
sentence irrevocable. (On the facts themselves, see the commentary on 1 Sam 2:27-36.)

Don't you know John that in Scripture the emphatic always overrules the implied when passages of Scripture seen to contradict one another? That is a hard and fast rule of Biblical interpretation.

Why wrestle with:

"And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

Is that not plain enough for you? It is for countless four point Calvinists, Baptists and all Arminians. And it quite a bit more to the point and emphatic as far as world atonement goes than 1 Sam. 3:14.

Of course this verse is not an argument for universalism. But rather that Christ's atoning blood is available to all by faith. Rom. 3:25.