Arminianism Contrary to God's Word!!

The Calvinist Manifesto

 

Hi Rufus;
What are you going to do with this verse;
"Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not".
A clear indication that we have a choice.
Romanbear

 

No Romanbear, this is a clear indication that Jesus came to His own, (chosen people of Israel) and His own did not recieve Him. This was to ensure the engrafting of the gentiles. That is how we see that verse. Exactly how it was to be recieved.

 

Sturgman;
The chosen are the elect.So are you saying that you refuse to admit what the Bible clearly says. You add to Gods word to make it say something it does not say.

I think you should look at this and know what happens to those who do this.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Romanbear

 

God did come to the Israelites and most of them refused His offer of salvation. While it is true that God engrafted Gentiles into His plan He still could have offered grace to non-Gentiles, even if God saved every Jewish person. His grace is infinite and eternal.

 

Correction! I meant to say Gentiles instead of non-Gentiles.

 

Teacher: Class, can anyone tell me why the "people of Israel" didn't recieve Jesus?

Sturgman: Uh, cause they got that hardening where like their eyes were blind and they couldn't understand and believe the message of God.

Teacher: That's right Sturgy, very good. Now, tell me why Paul and Jesus both speak about taking the message of God's Kingdom to the Gentiles in Acts 28:28 and Matt. 21:43 for example.

Sturgman: Cause it was God's plan to ingraft the Gentiles who, by the way, are also hardened.

Teacher: Well, yes God's plan was to ingraft the Gentiles Strugy, but where does the Bible say that the Gentiles are hardened?

Sturgman: It doesn't, but it doesn't say they weren't either, so what ever you teach about one of them you gotta assume about all the rest.

Teacher: Now wait Strugy, the Israelites were hardened because they had continually rejected God's ways, the Gentiles had never heard God's message before this time.

Sturgman: Well...uh...the Bible says we are all Totally Unable to respond to the gospel, and so we are all hardened by the Fall of Man.

Teacher: Strugy, where does the Bible say these things?

Sturgman: Romans 8:5-8

Teacher: No, nothing about man's inability to respond to the call of the HS through the gospel in that passage. It merely says that sinful man can't submit to God's law nor can they please God when their in their sin nature.

Sturgman: John 6

Teacher: Sorry, remember Jesus is speaking to Israel. Don't forget, they are hardened except for the Remnant, who are enabled by God's grace to come to Jesus.

Sturgman: How about Romans 3:10-12?

Teacher: No, once again this only says that men are unrighteous, have turned away from God and don't seek Him. All of this in reference to mankind before the coming of a new righteousness that Paul introduces in verse 21 of that chapter, which is gained "through faith." Paul mentions the word faith 9 times in this passage and never once indicates that man is totally unable to have faith in the gospel, which continues Christ's work of seeking and saving that which is lost.

Sturgman: Well 1 Cor. 12:3 says that man can't even say "Jesus is Lord" expect by the Holy Spirit.

Teacher: Strugy, now we learned to use proper hermeneutics last semester. What is the context?

Sturgman: Uh..I dunno.

Teacher: Paul is speaking to the Corinthians about spiritual gifts, of which some pagans at that time seemed to possess. They were having difficulting decerning at times which was a gift of the Spirit of God and which was a gift of an evil spirit. Paul was simply giving them an easy way to find out. The person who can say that "Jesus is Lord" has the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit cannot call Jesus "accursed."

We know this is not speaking about salvation or how to even determined if someone is saved because Jesus clearly taught us that their will be many who say "Lord, Lord" who will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Sturgman: You are a master of linguistic slight of hand and this is all just smoke and mirrors, I'm leaving!

Teacher: Bye!

 

Bro Bill, I believe I have offered you much respect on this board, and it is very unappreciated that you would treat me in this manner. I believe it was uncalled for, and you lost much respect in my eyes. Up till now I respected you for your thoughts even when I did not agree with them. Thank you for sharing with me your brotherly love.

In love,
sturgman

[ February 28, 2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: sturgman ]

 

Where did I add to God's word? I quoted the verse out right, I just put in context who the people were. Romanbear, that is a bold statement when I did nothing of the sort.

Now there is adding to God's word. You see the word choice in there, and I was saying that the word choice does not appear, nor does the idea.

[ February 28, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: sturgman ]

 

Sturgman,
Don't take it that way. It was all in fun, brother. All of my arguments are sincere. I just feel like whe we start to really get to a point that our debate is getting to the issues that you call me a "master of debate" or a "trickster" and leave me hanging. I'll admit I have to be a bit brass sometimes to invoke a response from yall, but its my desire to make you go down the path that I was forced down years ago when I abandoned Calvinism. I don't expect that will happen with most of you guys who are really set in your beliefs, but I enjoy trying to at least make you think about those issues that most Calvinists haven't ever dealt with. You said you don't mind going "toe to toe" in defense of your theology.

Honestly, in this last post I was just trying to get you to see your arguments from my perspective. If I really offended you I apologize, that's not my intent.

(Now, Nick, I don't mind offending because he has been very offensive )

But you, you're a good guy. I can tell you know your Word and you're still willing to learn it and be challenged by those who think differently than you. If I stepped over the line, I apologize sincerely and I only ask that you address my points while ignoring the manner in which they were presented.

Sincerely,
Brother Bill

 

I don't believe you need to invoke anger or offenciveness to look at truth. You do that in a mariage and it will be a short one. You do that in a friendship and it is a short one as well.

I have never minded addressing your point. Nor have I made you out to be an ignorant fool while trying to get you to address mine. The issue at hand is that your point was not what I was addressing here. Romanbear was saying that a verse says we have choice when the verse says nothing of the sort. he claimed that we calvinist cannot hold our claim in light of the verse and implied that we throw it out. I feel I answered the question intelligantly and effectively. Then to be treated as if I were a young fool who knows nothing and does not know scripture, I feel was in very bad taste.

In the future, I suggest that you come across with a little honey in your words when you want them to be accepted. It gets you much further than vinegar.

In Him,
sturgman

 

Now, Sturgman, I said I was sorry, let's not push it.

You like to use the old saying, "the pot calling the kettle black." Well, this situation is a good example.

I don't want to involve anymore anger here by quoting the things I've read you post in response to others (ie Yelsew). But, if you continue to play the saint, that never uses harsh words, you'll force me to do just that.

Let's move on and address the issues. I realize that my post addressed much more than what Romanbear was attempting to address but I just saw it as a good opportunity to re-introduce these issues.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

I am not pushing the issue. Yes, I have been somewhat disrespectful to Yelsew, but our relationship is like that of Npetrely and yours. It is a give and take relationship. You on the other hand I have been nothing but respectful with. So there is much difference. I believe I have addressed oyur issues on the other threads, my point here still remains.

 

Sturgman;
This where you add to Gods word.
-----------------------------------------
This was to ensure the engrafting of the
gentiles.
------------------------------------------
it does not say this here. It was the Jews choice to reject Christ. They were not made to reject Him.
Romanbear

 

What did he say specifically that made you think otherwise?