Question for Arminians

Yes, he WAS, but he knows better now! :laugh:

 

That is a terrible thing to say. I want every person everywhere to be saved. I simply disagree with your doctrine and believe it unscriptural. That doesn't mean I think I understand it all, I have been around awhile, and one thing I know is that I don't know much.

Give me a break. I know that not everyone who calls himself a Calvinist believes the exact same thing. But generally speaking you believe the teachings of Calvin. You have mentioned Irresistable Grace for instance, and that is a doctrine of Calvin's. He may not have been the first person to believe this doctrine, but he made it famous and it is commonly attributed to him.

I showed you from scripture where Jesus told the parable of the wedding feast. Many were called and bid, some flat-out refused to come, and others made excuses not to come. And at the end of the parable Jesus said "for many are called, but few are chosen"

Now that right there proves the doctrine of Irresistable Grace error.

You are correct that I do not care for the doctrines of Calvinism. I find the teaching that a just and loving God would choose some men to show mercy, and others to show wrath without a just reason repugnant. The scriptures say that God does not have any pleasure in the death of the wicked. The scriptures say God is not willing any should perish.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Here God says he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and tells the hearers to turn themselves. But Calvinism teaches that these men cannot possibly turn unless God gives them the ability to do so.

God tells men to choose, but they cannot. He tells men to repent when he knows they cannot, he tells men to come to him when he knows they cannot.

And you think that makes sense?

No, the scriptures say that it is God's will that all men be saved.

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

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

You deny the Word of God. The Lord has the perfect right to do whatever He so desires with His creatures. No one has inalienable rights with God.

Are you saying God is unjust because He chooses some instead of others? Don't you realize that He will have mercy on whoever He desires and He can harden whom He wants to harden? It doesn't depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. If you still object -- who in the world do you think you are -- a mere human being -- a piece of His clay, to talk back to God?!

See Romans 9 for more of the same.

 

This demonstrates either your ignorance or deliberate misreprentation of Calvinism.

Now that is a bold-faced lie. The Servetus affair was with him being burned at the stake was something Calvin was against. And Calvin wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at that point.

"Many people"?! Don't lie to advance whatever cause you wish to further.

Okay, this proves you haven't read any of Calvin's works. And be careful about condemning a godly man who the Lord used as His instrument for His Church.

 

This is something that caught me off guard. You're making my argument for me!

When did Lazarus receive the ability to hear Jesus' call? Why, after he was made alive again. And until he was made alive, he could not hear or obey Jesus' words.

I heard it said once that the reason Jesus called Lazarus out by name is, that had he simply said "Come forth," all the graves would have opened up and the dead would have come out.

Everybody around the grave heard Jesus call out, but the call was meant for Lazarus alone. Hmmmm, I like that.

Ephesians 2:1 "And you hath he quickened (made alive) who were dead in trespasses and sin."

v. 5 repeats the theme: "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us.
v. 6 "...and hath raised us up together (with Christ)...."

I'm liking the Lazarus parallel better all the time.

 

You have just made the words of Christ powerless and second to the Holy Spirit.

 

Web, I certainly don't mean to. I see the Godhead working in regeneration, but not at odds with each other or independently of each other.

And, we have to remember that we're dealing in the physical realm with Lazarus. Lazarus is made physically alive. Was it the words of Jesus which made him alive? Was it simply the exercise of his mighty power, accompanied by words that others would hear?

Whatever is the case, the fact is that Lazarus was unable to come out of that tomb until he was enabled.

I recognize that you and others may not see this as a valid analogy or parallel to spiritual regeneration.

I don't think your claim that Jesus' words are powerless and second to the Holy Spirit holds up.

 

You are correct in that the scripture does not have to say 'this is a parallel', and I did not say it had to. I referenced that fact that parallels are noted in scripture due the the re-occuring statement that link the event to the subject.

If we did not ground such 'perceived' paralles from continuous reciting of scripture on the subejct, then you, I, or anyone else can make a parallel to anything including point blank heresies. Just because something seems to be a neat picture of what you (you in a general sense) might hold to theologically does not equate to it being an actaul parallel in context. (ie. Dipsy view of the Churches being parallels of the church ages)

Actaully there is MUCH more than this which 'establishes' Issac a parallel to Jesus (in a general sense and not in a literal physical sense).
Jesus is stated as being the seed of Abraham, but who was the literal seed of Abraham to whom the promises were to be placed upon/unto - Issac. Galatians 3 speaks quite often of Abraham's seed through whom His/God's promises were to come and that seed was, according to God in the OT, Isaac who was a picture of Jesus and seen as such in these very passages. We know this because Paul tells us that the seed spoken of was literally Isaac but spiritually Jesus, (though it can be argued it included not only spiritual but physical which was through His ancestry).

Gal 4 speaks of the two women (Sarah and Hagar) who had two children and that only one was the chosen child through whom God's promises would come - Isaac, and not from the bound Ishmael. However this Paul states is an allegory, which is the parallel of Christ.

Now in seeing the above look at what is said in your quote:

The parallels are used other times as well but these show a consistancy that Isaac is indeed seen as the parallel to Christ Jesus. Thus you can see it also in other aspects of his life as well
1. Miracle birth
2. born of the free
3. through whom all the blessing promised to Abraham (those of faith) would come.
4. The Father choosing his bride
5. The sacrifice from with the resurrection is foreshadowed
6. Through Isaac the people of God came forth.

However, these are not actaully stated as specific parallels by other passages and the reason is because it is already established that Isaac himself is the general parallel.

As I have shown brother, Isaac is an established parallel. However as I stated earlier as well, just to say something is a parallel is nothing more than wishful thinking on 'whomevers' part (be it the dispy or whomever), it must be established in scripture as such in order to be declared such. :thumbs:

 

Wow, your brevity is as good as mine :laugh:

However, I will divide it up a bit for conversation sake.
See, you did teach me something a while back

First, my statement was not a personal attack but was a statement based upon observation. The definitions of 'ability' and 'responsibility' establish that one can not exist apart from the other. To presume such either shows a person must change the very meanings established for a perceived notion/idea, OR that they are confused about what those words actually mean. I purposefully set you in the later category because I do believe you are honest in your belief but incorrect in your understanding of the meanings and operations of each within the process of the other.

Sorry but that makes no sense.
First, it is entirely biblical.
However what is strange is that you concede that it is unjust to hold a person responsible for what they are unable to do/not do, and that this is reasonable. Thus if it is reasonable then it is therefore a logically constructed based upon an understanding of the aspects of Just and Right. And here is where the strange part kicks in - you therefore concede that sinful man (even in a depraved state) knows the basis of what is just and right, but you state scripture speaks contrary to what is just and right.

If sinful man knows even these basics, how much more so does and is God who is perfect in all things - including justice and righteousness.

This is the same type of argument that Jesus used when comparing mans love with God's love. If sinful man knows how to love, how much more so does God?

It is not only 'reasonable', which is in fact 'logical', but it is so based on the nature and character of God Himself. IOW - It is an immutable truth understood the world over, not from man, but established in and from God.

Our understanding of justice itself is derived from the very aspect of God's being just as righteousness is. Even in the Law one can not be charged as guilty (held responsible) for something they could not do. And that Law mirrored God's justice and righteousness.

Therefore, God can not (because of His nature) and will not (because of His character) judge/condemn a person responsible for something they are not able to do. That is pointedly biblically in every respect
.

 

I stated:
Being drawn does not equate to salvation.

To which you replied:

Nothing in the above shows that being drawn equates to one who is saved. It purely suppositional. What the above illistrates specifically is that those who 'come' are saved. Note the specificness of what is actaully said. Everyone who sees AND believes will have everlasting life.
I agree that without question that our salvation is impossible without God's drawing/calling, however as I have already noted in my previous post with scripture God's calling can be rejected.

Actually, no we did not discuss it. You gave your view, I stated mine and you ignored what I said and is why I am having to restate it again. That is not a discussion

Notice please the emphasis is not on who is called, but is in reality 'why' they can come and 'what' happens when they come.
Not being condesending here but I would encourage you to take a little time and go into the Greek and look that construction, specifically with regard to 'can' and how it is used here. The point here is not 'will come' but 'can come'. They are different words in both Greek and English but their usage is the still same. One represents a possibility (can) the other an emphatic declaration or fact (will). Thus the emphasis is not about those drawn to be raised up, but that those who come will be raised up.

This still in no way, shape, form, or fashion proves your conention brother.
No man 'can' (have the ability, enabled) come unless God draw him. This in no way can be used to support Irresistable grace because it does not state those drawn will come proving a definitive declartion but in fact the text states no man is enabled to come unless the Father draw him.

It is no different than stating no man come eat my wifes dinner unless I allow him. The fact I allow them to come does not necessitate they will come and partake/eat. (well truthfully once you had my wifes cooking you will but that is another story). However it does declare that one will come unless I first allow them. What this proves is not Irresistable Grace but in reality His Grace and even arguable Prevenient grace.

Uh.. not even close. Those whom the Father gave to Jesus will come NOT those whom the Father draws will come. This statement merely reflects the fact that God knows all that will/are to come. However once again if you keep with the scripture you can only conclude those who come He will raise up, NOT those who are drawn I will raise up. There is nothing in any portion of the above verses that states all who are drawn will be saved, it only states those drawn can come, and those who see and believe He will raise up at the last day.

No one disputes all of the elect will come to Jesus but you are over extending the scriptures to presume that being drawn equates 'will come' because scripture is specific in that it never states it this way.
The whole point of Jesus teaching was that God draws but you must receive/believe/eat and that only these are those God gave Him. The emphasis here is not and can not be construed here to be the drawing of God equating to salvation but the believing is. However Jesus makes His point clear that man can't just come on his own nor under his own power, the Father must draw him that he 'can' come.

Seriously, there is no tension in scripture over this. Resposibility is depenant upon ability, where there is no ability there is no responsibility. Just as it is in the converse with God as well - one can not be able and not held resposible. If one is true then the other must be true. However if one is true and the other is seen to not be true, then you have a lie in one of them. One can not be true and the other a not since each gives the other it's meaning.

Actaully it is about both.

Actually it is because of the intregrity of the scriptures that we 'can' say those not all those who are drawn will come. Refer back to my previous post for some scirptures, and I also will be glad to give you more.

3. Those people are assuredly saved 'if' they believe.

Now you are leaving your own OP to argue something else. Let us keep it here for now.

On this point both Arminians and Non-Cals rejoice with you in the fact.

 

I needed to correct some aspects of my answer in post # 52 in my third contention (approx 'my' 4th paragraph).
Here it is corrected:

I realize post 53 is somewhat out of sorts, so if you are having trouble understanding it just let me know what part and I will clarify. I was at work and actaully was fairly busy so I was trying to put down my thoughts quickly before I logged out.

 

But that is the point, it doesn't teach anything to the contrary but in fact establishes the point.

What it doesn't conform to is your theology not scripture.
The scripture establish responsibility and ability and that neither is without the other. To say that one is responsible but not able is to not only completely redefine the terms but to speak expressly against the scriptures.
Deut 30:19-20, Prov 1:23-33, Rom 1:18-32, etc, etc, etc...

Pauls pleading to 'not harden your hearts when you hear God'. and many, many, many more, like Jesus statement that if you were blind you would have no sins, but since you see your sins remain.

You are correct, and thus what is known are right even to the depraved is greater righteousness and justice from and by the one who has no sin. IOW- God's righteousnesss is not opposite of what is understood and just and right but greater and more perfect especially since both justice and righteousness stem from God Himself.

 

ReformedBaptist, I disagree with you. The scriptures clearly teach that God is just.

Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Job 34:10 Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.
11 For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
12 Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.

Now, we are all sinners, we are all wicked. All men are equal in this respect. Only by believeing in Christ can Christ's righteousness be imputed to any man. If God elects certain men to believe, and leaves others in unbelief, then God is showing partiality. This violates God's own words that he is no respecter of persons.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Deut 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Deut 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

Job 34:19 How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands.

Job 34 speaks of the judgement of God and several times says he is no respecter of person, he does not favor or regard any man more than another. And throughout the scriptures demands that men judge justly and not respect or favor one man over another.

And God tells why he shows wrath to some men in Job 34.

Job 34:27 Because they turned back from him, and would not consider any of his ways:

God clearly makes a man responsible for his own destruction. They turn away from him and will not consider any of his ways.