Arminianisms

How in the world (that's a use of the word that doesn't mean "every single person who ever has or ever will live") can you call a theological view that is and has been rejected or ignored by a majority of the church for 2,000 years a "fact?" Especially when it involves something in the future and a hermeneutical approach that is, at best, suspect? </font>[/QUOTE]Evidently, you didn't read the whole link I posted, so your assessment is based upon the opinion of others from the past, rather than on the Bible, a "common denominator" among calvinist.


Did you know that certain parts of scripture wasn't to be revealed until the "time of the end"??

 

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world,

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

You'll have to explain why God loved the world, but Jesus wouldn't pray for the world God loved.

and why Jesus lied by saying he came to do the will of the father, then refused to pray for a world he didn't come to condemn.

World does have different meaning/application, but calvinst are the ones who fail to interpret it properly in context of Jo 3:16.

 

Hello Me4Him.

I haven't got to explain anything, if you accept the above quote as a truth the problem is with you to explain it to yourself. John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world...

I have no problem with it but your faith is based on ambiguity.

No, you have to: John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world...

Why did Jesus lie you ask? Is that preferable to changing your doctrine? For God so loved the world, but Jesus wouldn't pray for it. Thwarted this time by His Son. What a Poor Old Thing He is to be sure.

Maybe so Me4Him but when we interpret John 3:16 properly we keep ending up with, For God so loved the world, but Jesus wouldn't pray for it.

john.

 

Did you read your own post? This is the definition (# 10) that we say John 3:16 means. It means mankind in an indefinite sense. The way Me4Him uses it in this context is "everyone who has ever lived." Those are his words, not mine.

No Calvinist that I have seen so far on this board has said "world means believers." I, and others, have said repeatedly that in John 3 "world" means Jews and Gentiles (mankind in general) rather than "every individual that has ever lived."

But thank you for the 22 different definitions of the same word that proves my point that "world" doesn't always mean the same thing.

 

Actually, my assessment is based on the fact that the first verse you used, you misinterpreted (a day = a thousand years), and then based your whole theologcial grid on it.

My assessment is based on the fact that you whine that Calvin supposedly made stuff up that isn't in the Scripture (which he didn't), and then you make a whole chart based on an 8th day that is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

Maybe I'll make it through the thread one day, but after reading your first misinterpretation and glancing at that chart, I couldn't bring myself to waste any more time.

 

Actually, my assessment is based on the fact that the first verse you used, you misinterpreted (a day = a thousand years), and then based your whole theologcial grid on it.

My assessment is based on the fact that you whine that Calvin supposedly made stuff up that isn't in the Scripture (which he didn't), and then you make a whole chart based on an 8th day that is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

Maybe I'll make it through the thread one day, but after reading your first misinterpretation and glancing at that chart, I couldn't bring myself to waste any more time. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Le 23:39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.

When two sabbaths fell "back to back" (7th-8th days), the second sabbath (8th) was called a "high day", as being "HOLY" also, know why, Jesus was resurrected on that second sabbath, the 8th day, that why the church worships on "Sunday".

Joh 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

If Adam had not ended the 7th day by sin, there wouldn't be an 8th day, nor a reason for Jesus to die/resurrect, nor a GWT Judgment.

God didn't "predestine" the 8th day, Adam/sin created that day and all the consequences of it.

1.Death of man
2.Death of Jesus
3.death of unbelievers. GWT.

 

Hello Me4Him.

on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.

I for one get confused with numbers but I know the Sabbath was from friday night till saturday night and there is only seven days in a week still.

The Church meets on sundays because the Apostles and others were at the synagogues on saturdays. A place the Apostles to the Jews would be expected to be.

The Church is always at worship.

Tim suggested I read the bible and I read, JN 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

I'm beginning to doubt his suggestion as you say Jesus did not create everything?

john.

 

This "eighth day" was still Fri night-Sat at sundown. It wasn't like God created another day of the week.

These two sabbaths were not "back to back." They were seven days apart. The feast lasted seven days and was book-ended by Sabbaths, just like every other week of the year. The difference was that one sabbath openned the feast and one closed the feast. They were not two consecutive days.

But you, in your chart, take the eighth day back to creation!?! This has nothing to do with creation, but a feast of Israel.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

Notice it doesn't say on the "second sabbath" or on the "eight day." It says "after the sabbath" and the "first day of the week." I think you are trying to read your theological chart into the text rather than taking the plain normative reading of Scripture.

The "second sabbath" would have been from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown. Jesus was raised AFTER this second sabbath, not on it.

I'm not sure how you get your statements in this paragraph from John 19:31, but I will chalk it up to your typical eisegesis.

Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that this "8th day" is something that God was surprised by? That He didn't pre-determine to, at the very least, allow this plan to unfold the way it has? I mentioned once before that you are bordering on Open Theism, and I say it again: You are bordering on Open Theism.

 

This "eighth day" was still Fri night-Sat at sundown. It wasn't like God created another day of the week.

These two sabbaths were not "back to back." They were seven days apart. The feast lasted seven days and was book-ended by Sabbaths, just like every other week of the year. The difference was that one sabbath openned the feast and one closed the feast. They were not two consecutive days.

But you, in your chart, take the eighth day back to creation!?! This has nothing to do with creation, but a feast of Israel.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

Notice it doesn't say on the "second sabbath" or on the "eight day." It says "after the sabbath" and the "first day of the week." I think you are trying to read your theological chart into the text rather than taking the plain normative reading of Scripture.

The "second sabbath" would have been from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown. Jesus was raised AFTER this second sabbath, not on it.

I'm not sure how you get your statements in this paragraph from John 19:31, but I will chalk it up to your typical eisegesis.

Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that this "8th day" is something that God was surprised by? That He didn't pre-determine to, at the very least, allow this plan to unfold the way it has? I mentioned once before that you are bordering on Open Theism, and I say it again: You are bordering on Open Theism. </font>[/QUOTE]Read the "WHOLE" link, I'm not going to retype it here, these "piece-meal" doctrines taken out of context of the "WHOLE" aren't worth much, it's as bad as using one verse to build a docrtine.

You won't "SEE" the complete picture until all the "pieces" are "in place", read the whole link.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3398.html

 

You ask a good question. Where/how did an "EIGHTH DAY" enter into the Scripture??

I'm going to ask another one - Now who is making up a theology with no Scriptural support?

Again, nice chart that means absolutely nothing unless you buy into the "day = 1thousandyears" theory. </font>[/QUOTE]AW, And I thought the chart 'uz right purrty, too!

Even so!



Ed

 

"WHY" do you have a hard time remembering the differences between "Foreknowledge" and "predestination"??

Did God "FORCE" Adam/Eve to sin, or did he "ALLOW" them a "CHOICE"??

Adam/Eve were "perfect" and "ALLOWED" to be "IM-perfect", by a choice,

We are "IM-perfect" and allowed to be "perfect", by a "choice", (believing in Jesus)

Having a "FREE WILL CHOICE" to follow the lord or not is taught throughout the scriptures.

Jg 2:22 That through them I may prove Israel,

whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it,

or not.

 

You ask a good question. Where/how did an "EIGHTH DAY" enter into the Scripture??

I'm going to ask another one - Now who is making up a theology with no Scriptural support?

Again, nice chart that means absolutely nothing unless you buy into the "day = 1thousandyears" theory. </font>[/QUOTE]AW, And I thought the chart 'uz right purrty, too!

Even so!



Ed </font>[/QUOTE]They say a picture is worth a "thousand words",

but I'm beginning to think a thousand pictures couldn't explain ten words to some.

Nowatimean, Vern???

 

First of all, you who in another thread claimed that predestination was something made up by Calvin, have no business lecturing me on the difference between foreknowledge and predestination.

Second of all, God's foreknowledge exists because God's sovereignty exists. Your comment on the 8th day seemed to suggest that God set his plan in motion and, oops, man came and messed it up, so God started plan B and used man's 8th day sin to correct the situation. The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. The Bible says that Christ is the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.

No problem with your statement here...

So, you admit that you believe it is something we do? I couldn't have given a better example of non-biblical synergism if I tried.

We are not just imperfect, we are dead. We are not sick, we are dead. We are not drowning (sinking deep in sin, as the song goes), we have sunk. We sin by choice, but we will never choose right even though the choice is out there. It is not that the choice isn't there, it is that we will never choose it. This is not God's fault, it is ours.

The Bible never says we are "allowed" to be perfect. The Bible says we are perfected. The Bible says we are raised. The Bible says we are sanctified. The Bible says we are foreknown. The Bible says we are predestined. The Bible says we are called. The Bible says we are justified. The Bible says we are glorified. All of these are verbs in the passive voice in the Greek. That means that it is not something we do, it is something that is done to us.

So, you are going to support your contention from a verse in the book of Judges in the context of Israel's rebellion? You seem to forget that we believe that man chooses to rebel. God puts the choice out there and proves that we will not follow Him. That was the whole purpose of the Law - to show us our rebellion. We take the Law, and like the rich young ruler, think that we are righteous. We are dead and blind, poor and naked. That is why there is need of a miracle. Israel needed it in the book of Judges as much as we do today.

 

I didn't say there wasn't a theological difference between foreknowledge and predestination. I said you had no business lecturing me on that difference, since in a previous thread you claimed that "predestination" was made up by Calvin.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

Perhaps you could explain why Peter tells these Jew that Jesus was delivered up by God according to His foreknowledge and determined purpose, if it wasn't part of God's plan?

Acts 3:18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.

Perhaps you could explain how Peter didn't understand that God wasn't in any way responsible for the "free-will" actions of the men who killed Jesus when he said that God fulfilled the suffering of Jesus.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.

Maybe you could explain how God bruised Him and put Him to grief if He had nothing to do with the "free-will" actions of men.

Calvinists try to balance all of the Scriptures. Men sin because they want to. But every action of man is considered in God's foreordained plan. This is the testimony of Scripture. Again, primary cause (God), secondary causes (men).

So, you are an open theist. You believe that God was surprised by Adam and Eve's sin and had to come up with plan B? That's a very dangerous belief. Calvin's doctrine (biblical Christianity) explains sin the way the Bible does. Man willingly chose to sin and whatever God has foreordained comes to pass to the praise of His glorious grace.

You, on the other hand, in order to "make God fair," want to explain that God created man and Lucifer and stepped back, not sure what would happen. When His deepest fears came true, that Lucifer and man would reject Him, He had to come up with another plan since the first one was messed up.

Because it was part of His eternal plan.

God does whatever He does to the praise of the glory of His grace.

Ephesians 1:4-6 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

Pay attention to the tense of verbs in the English text there. Both called and chosen are adjectives in the Greek that are reflexive. It does not say, for many called themselves but few chose themselves because of their unbelief. It says many are called but few are chosen. Who chose? God did.

WRONG. We place the entire blame for sin and for staying in sin on man. God is not to be blamed just because He doesn't go out of His way to save someone who doesn't want it. That, too, is man's fault. God is "blamed" or given credit for the salvation of the elect. This is the testimony of Scripture, not just Calvin.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Everything I have stated has been a direct quote from Scripture. You are the one who uses philosophical arguments to try to say what it might mean for God to be fair.

How is "adoption as sons" not another phrase for being saved (Eph. 1:5)? What unsaved person is adopted as a son? What unsaved person gets conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29)? How is obtaining an inheritance not another phrase for being saved (Eph. 1:11)?

Predestine comes from the Greek word prohoridzo which means to determine beforehand. In the case of these three verses it involves determining one's destiny. That most certainly involves salvation.

I don't need to explain it. This passage says they are responsible AND GOD LEAVES THEM ALONE!!! Thank you for giving us a verse that talks about God's reprobation (leaving a sinner in their sin).

And, yet I can keep quoting Scriptures that support it...

This just goes to prove that you don't know anything that Calvin or calvinist say. We are clear that the Bible says that men are to blame when they go to hell, not God. God gets the credit when anyone goes to heaven.

1) You didn't give the Scripture that says "God made it possible for all men (every single person who ever lived) to be saved.

2) We don't deny that unbelief prevents people from being saved. We affirm that because the Bible, in fact, does say it.

 

Calvibaptist

You sure are "mixed up".

Is it man's will that comes to pass or God's "Foreordained"??

Where does "Foreknowledge" fit into this statement???

"foreknowledge" does have any "surprises".

God created a "perfect world", Plan A, Adam sinned, making Jesus necessary, Plan B.

Now explain why God's "Sovereign will", Plan A, didn't prevent sin from entering in the first place, especially when Jesus died to redeem every sins ever committed to restore the earth back to "Plan A". (New earth)

"WHY" does Man have to go through this "process" of "plan B" when God's "sovereign will" "COULD HAVE"... "ENFORCED", Plan A???

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

You sure are Forgetful.

 

This is so biblically innacurate, it almost doesn't deserve a response. I could probably just quote you and let it stand for itself, but I guess I'll indulge you.

Everything that has transpired since God first said, "Let there be light" is Plan A. There is no plan B. If there had to be a Plan B, that would make God a reactionary God that didn't know the future and had to come up with something different after man messed up his first plan.

That is what you are saying when you talk about man forcing God to come up with Plan B and send His Son. You may not think you are saying it, but that is the logical conclusion of your statements. Jesus was "slain before the foundation of the world." We were "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world." He works "all things according to the counsel of His will." Jesus was "foreordained before the foundation of the world." Therefore, everything that had to happen to bring about the necessity for the death of Christ was Plan A, not a reactionary Plan B.

Here's my problem with the way you use this verse: Did judgement really come on all who have ever lived or will live? The answer is yes! Does the free gift of justification of life come upon all who have ever lived or will live? The answer is no! Unless you are a universalist. So you either have to understand justification (a technical theological term) in another way, or understand all to mean two different things here.

This whole section of Romans 5 is talking about all those related to Adam vs all those who are related to Christ. Most theologians (Calvinist, Arminian, and everyone in between) agree with this. All those related to Adam by birth (that would be every human that has or will ever lived) are brought under judgment by his sin. All those related to Christ by birth (regeneration) are given the free gift of justification because of His obedience.

I love this verse as much as you and have answered you on this one as well, but let's have at it again.

The context of the passage deals with a variety of types of men that we are to pray for - kings and all who are in authority. It is quite legitimate from a Greek grammar standpoint to translate this verse "Who desires all types of men to be saved." This better fits the context since we are to pray for kings and all who are in authority. It also fits the end result that we see in heaven when we see not every single person who has ever lived standing there, but all types of people from every tribe, nation, and tongue. God gets what He desires, as He always does.

 

ha ha well lets look at context, calvinist hate that and fear it.

Verse one:
FIRST of all, then, I urge that entreaties AND prayers, petitions AND thanksgiving, be made on behalf of ALL MEN, pray for Kings and all who are in authority (everyone is in authority to someone down to kids and thier parents) in order to meet a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

verse 6 ...who gave himself a ransom for all, or was it just for kings? See if you follow your reasoning that it means only men who are kings or in government then those are the ones who God died for if we continue to use all out of context here. Or verse 6 would read like...who gave Himself as a ransom for all kings. Are all kings saved?

 

IMPORTANT INTERPRETIVE NOTE: When you have a general word or phrase, such as "all" or "all men" and it is identified in the immediate context, such as "for kings and all who are in authority," that is who the all men is talking about.

If I were to say, "This year, I want to give a Christmas present to everyone, to my mother, father, brothers and sisters." It does not mean that I want to give a Christmas present to every person who has ever lived. I have limited the generic by the specific. This is what Paul does in 1 Timothy 2. THAT is the context.

No, if I followed my reasoning it meant that God wanted them (kings and those in authority who were often enemies of the gospel) saved as well, which is why Timothy should encourage the Ephesians to pray for them. This is not a treatise on the extent of the gospel. Do you think that Paul was suggesting that Timothy should ONLY be praying for kings? It was not a treatise on the extent of praying either. It was a command to pray for those in authority.

 

I think you are right here calvi, it is a better interptation. really.