Arminianisms

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.
</font>[/QUOTE]Mt 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (plan A)


25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.


27 So the servants of (God) the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?


28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: (end of the world) and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Mt 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

If you don't understand the "parables", you won't/can't understand the bible.

Lu 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

"WHY" was Man/Angels given the opportunity to sin???

 

Mathew Henry was a Calvinist. There's nothing like using someone who agrees with you to prove your point. </font>[/QUOTE]By that I meant he wasn't an objective person to quote. He was biased.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]The usual Calvinist all doesn't mean all weak argument. It's given here, for John 3:16, and everywhere else when the Bible clearly states that salvation is obtainable by ALL who believe on Christ.

 

If you think you have perfect understanding of the parables, I will gladly sit at your feet. This is a very nice parable that describes things that happen. It says absolutely nothing about God's plan or man's messing up things. It doesn't tell us about a Plan B. My contention is that the enemy sowing the tares is part of God's Plan A.

And another thing, I know I've said this before, but don't try to determine you doctrine by the narrative sections. Determine doctrine from doctrinal sections and see how the narrative sections fit. When a clear statement is made, such as, "[God] works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11) you then take that doctrinal truth and try to figure out the parables (which are illustrations) withing that clear doctrinal statement. The parables cannot contradict clear doctrinal teachings. If they do, you are misinterpreting them.

You do understand that the passage you just quoted is an example of God keeping people from seeing Him, don't you? It is an example of man not getting the opportunity to repent. Man/Angels given the opportunity to sin was part of Plan A. It was necessary for the cross to even be needed.

 

All who? All is a generic term that is determined by context. In John 3:16 it is "all who believe". The all in John 3:16 is limited to only those who believe. Are you suggesting that because the word "all" is used in John 3:16, that even those who don't believe "have everlasting life?" Everlasting life is reserved for "all who believe."

 

All (according to the American Heritage Dictionary):

1) Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. Deal all the cards. See Synonyms at whole.
2) Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom.
3) Being the utmost possible of: argued the case in all seriousness.
4) Every: got into all manner of trouble.
5) Any whatsoever: beyond all doubt.

Please notice that in each of these definitions and examples given in the dictionary, the word "all" is limited by something. All windows, all Christendom, all seriousness, all manner, all doubt. Not in one definition is it an indescriminate all. It is always all of a particular category or group.

In John 3:16, that group is not all men, it is "all who believe." John 3:16 says nothing about the offer of salvation, but everything about the guarantee of salvation to all who believe.

 

Will it be necessary for a "CROSS" on the "New Earth, and "WHY NOT"????

So, "WHY" was it necessary for a "CROSS" on this Earth???

"WHAT" was the "PURPOSE" of God's plan to require "FAITH" in Jesus "BEFORE" he would allow a person to inhabit the "New Earth"???

God "Could have" prevented all sin, making Jesus/Cross/Faith/salvation totally un-necessary, so "WHY" didn't he???

"Sovereign will/predestination", can't/don't answer this question.

 

Me, re-read your own words

"God "Could have" prevented all sin, making Jesus/Cross/Faith/salvation totally un-necessary, so "WHY" didn't he???"

Not sure where you're headed with that but let me explain that the fall was NECESSARY, and therefore INTENDED by God all along. Why was it necessary? Because without the fall, there would be no redemption, and without redemption there would be no love for God. Do the angels love God? I don't think there's any scripture in the affirmative. The angels know not redemption, only man, and therefore only redeemed man can love God because he first loved us. Consider this:

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

We can not know this "glorious liberty" until we are first "subject to vanity".

And again:

Luke 7:42 ...Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that [he], to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped [them] with the hairs of her head. 45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, [the same] loveth little.

How could there be love at all unless there was first a trespass for which to be forgiven?

And again:

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Adam did not know grace until there was a fall, and there was no fall until there was a command "thou shalt not eat".

Now God did not CAUSE Adam to sin, for He didn't say to him "Thou SHALT eat of it", but rather, he commanded "Thou shalt NOT eat of it." But in the great paradox, it was the command itself that caused the fall due to Adam's rebellious heart.

Set any child in a room full of toys and forbid that child to touch none of them save one, and guess which one the child will go for?

So we see that God was not the author of sin, but sin was included in God's plan. There is no "plan A", oops, better go to "plan B". It was God's plan A all along, and that's all it ever will be.

And what of Satan's role in all of this? Contrary to popular opinion, the devil is NOT a near-equal to God, with the Almighty desperately trying to pull a victory here and there. The truth is that the devil himself accomplishes God's purpose in everything he does; else he would be utterly destroyed immediately. The devil entered Judas to accomplish that which God had fore-ordained by his "predeterminate counsel and foreknowledge".

"That no flesh should glory in His presence"

You're a patient man, Calvi. Me's posts are becoming caricatures of themselves. He's frozen into the same template many of us were before God opened our eyes to the truth. I was there for 20 years, denying that election was election, chosen means chosen, predestined means PRE destined, omnipotent means omnipotent.

But you gotta admire his spunk and determination
J.D.

 

Wow, I am new here (signed up last year, but have posted very little) so please be patient with me.
I have read "all" (defined: each post in this topic).
Has it occured to anyone that this is leading no where? I mean, by page 4 this thread had formed a circle.
My Question is this, which of you are born-again?
Who is your brother (defined: generic term for fellow born again believers in Jesus Christ)?
Many of you are rude and condescending to each other. It seems that debate cannot be controlled by the Spirit, or is it something else, do we want to win each other over to full knowledge or do we want to beat each other into submission? Moreover, which of these attitudes is controlled by the Spirit?

I am praying for each of you.

 

Free-Will can't answer this question either if you want to be in line with the Bible. The Bible says God works all things according to the counsel of His will to the praise of His glorious grace. Try re-reading Ephesians 1. It gives the PURPOSE for the way God did things a couple of times in the first 15 verses.

 

Besides, you keep saying we can't answer the question of why God did something. And I keep answering that God does everything He does for His glory. That is the biblical answer and that is the answer I keep giving.

 

Humilis, I appreciate your prayers. I don't question the salvation of any of my fellow brothers that I disagree with. We are all passionate about what we believe is the truth of God's word. I think we are pretty tame as far as debates go. Especially when you consider some of the things that have been said throughout church history. Arminius' daughter was once accused of dancing with the devil in her upstairs bedroom. I don't think we have quite sunk that low.

For the most part we seem to be sticking to the issues with our sarcasm and jabs. Occasionally, we go a little close to the line, but, even though I don't know these people, I respect them and their passion. I would probably get along with them just fine in normal conversation.

Stick it out though. We're not as bad as we sound.

 

No, because God's Plan A will be complete.

 

Humilis said "Has it occured to anyone that this is leading no where?"

Hum, see timtool's post, he's beginning to see the light. That's why we do this. It's like preaching the gospel - not all will believe, but SOME will. Shouldn't we preach, even if NONE believe?

It is for the love of the truth we do this, and that goes for those on BOTH SIDES of the issue.

Stay tuned. As David Cloud, a fundamentalist publisher, and firm arminian, said: "The issue of Calvinism/Arminianism will not go away. We've got to decided which side we're on."

 

Thank you Calvibaptist,

I will stick it out. I have agreed with much said, on both sides. In fact I agree with each scripture used, but not with each interpretation.
I am an uneducated and simple minded person, and really only want truth. I trust the Holy Spirit will teach me as I navigate this topic.

God Bless you

 

Thank you as well, J.D.

 

J.D...."The issue of Calvinism/Arminianism will not go away. We've got to decided which side we're on."

If we are to be on the side of Christ, onto which side does Calvinism or Arminianism fall? Educate me here please, help me to understand. Can they be so opposed yet still be "Christian"? As I have read these post, I do not see, what Calvinism or Arminianism really taught, only what each of you say they taught, using scripture to back up what seems to be your already held belief. I am not being hard here, I really want to learn, so again be patient with me, Please.

 

My little piece of advice (if you want it) is to take the Scripture that each of us (on both sides) bring out and dig into them yourself. I do not believe you need a Master's degree (or even a Bachelor's) to understand the Word of God. You need to have a desire and the Holy Spirit. It sounds like you have both.

Take your time and don't jump to conclusions too quickly. Look for biblical arguments, not philosophical. Be patient with all of us and with yourself. It has taken me 10 years to "choose" (!) to change from a free-willer to a Calvinist. I'm not saying you'll end up doing the same, just search for the truth.

Also, although it is important what great men of church history have believed and said (and we should not neglect them), great men of God have come down on both sides of the issue (Calvin/Wesley, MacArthur/Swindoll, etc.). We just all need to worry about what we think the Scripture says.