Question for Arminians

...true, you just redefined what responsible means

 

Wow, lot's of substance to your argument. You are right because you are right.

As Allan said, a man cannot be held accountable for believeing if he does not have the ability to believe. Your argument is simply that God can do whatever he wants. All men are sinners and that God simply chooses to save some and condemn others because that is his right. But God himself says in the scriptures that he is just and does not respect persons or have more regard for one man than another. Your argument says that God can violate his own standards of justice, that God is a hypocrite.

And if you are right, Christ's death and resurrection does not save us. No, because unless God elects you, Christ's sacrifice is meaningless and does nothing for you.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

 

That is because you choose not to. But it is there throughout the scriptures.

Well unfortunately that if even one verse of scripture contradicts this then you need to take another look at where your view is incorrect, and there are many to choose from brother.

Yes and no.
Yes because the 10 commandment were given to show man that he was not perfect nor could aspire to be in and of himself.
However, the itself has within it the laws of sacrifice that covered transgressions and either imparted and/or maintianed the in a right relationship with God. Thus in keeping the Law of sacrifice (part of the Law) they in effect were keeping the Law.

you seem to forget that apart of the Law was the Law of sacrifices and if they continued in the Law of sacrifices in conjunction with other aspects of the Law, it covered their sins and kept them 'righteous' before God.
Had not God said many times with respect to many promises to Israel, that if they would keep His word, obey His commandments, keep all His statutes, He would do such and such a thing/things or bless them is such and such a way? Now my Reformed brethren would state "they could not do such", and yet we find time and again where God fulfilled His promises to them which were in fact conditioned upon them keeping All His Commands.

The question then is how could He fulfill His promises if they could not keep them. My reformed brethren would state "God's grace interceded", but you will never find that in scripture. What you will find in scripture is that it states they obeyed God and he blessed them. The law of sacrifice was part of the Law in which men maintained righteousness even though they broke God's Laws constantly. Thus by the keeping of the laws (including the Laws of sacrifice) they did indeed did keep the law, but they did so by faith not by works.

And that was the point of the Law - to bring men to faith by revealing to them their sinfulness and to choose the redemption both revealed and offered by God to all.

What was added? You lost me.


So, if God knowing that His Law could not or would not be obeyed (He knew both) how is it that He held men responsible to it?[/QUOTE]
Acatully, the Law was given to show man his sinfulness and was said to be man's taskmaster/teacher.

It was given to bring men to faith by revealing to them their sinfulness and to choose the redemption both revealed and offered by God.

 

But here is where you keep bringing views into the text - it is based on your view of election. Therfore it either must be the way you see it, or else your theology is wrong because it is the basis of how you interpret scripture. I personal philosophy is let scripture dictate our theology and let the theological views fall where ever they may.

Agreed.

Of course it doesn't! Our disagrement isn't about these immutable truths but about the mechanics of their operation.

Uh.. nice scarecrow. No one, especially not me, has stated to any degree that those whom the Father gave to Jesus will reject Him. I said not everyone drawn will come. Scripture places distinction in this. Those drawn can, those who believe will. All those the Father gave to Jesus will be raised up, the 'will be raised up' is specifically tied NOT to being drawn but to those who believe. The only ones who can believe are those drawn but being drawn NEVER is stated 'will come' only and alway 'can come'. However believing IS always associated with "will be raised up".

I agree (since you are referencing your strawman).

Maybe you missed those passages of scripture which state 'you do always resist the Holy Spirit', or the ones that state God has stretched out His hands all day long to a disobedient and gainsaying people, or the one that states I have called by you have refused, I have stretched out my hands and no one cared, etc, etc, etc...

No one has stated those who came to Jesus were not drawn, it was stated that not all who are drawn will come.

I already have, many times just go back and read them. You simply erect another fabrication to tear it down. You are not dealing with points at all, only your views and made up postulation of what am 'supposed' to be believing.

Please go back and actaully read my posts to understand my contension and the things you keep tossing out.

I know this, but the biblcial *fact* is that not everyone who is called 'will' come. Prov 1 states specifically that He has called and they have refused. Romans and Prov states specifically that He is stretching out His arms daily but they refused Him; God would have gathered them to Himself but they did would not; He called but they rejected the invitation (wedding feast), Many are called but few are chosen. Apparently the bibical precident is that not all who are drawn will come, but all who are drawn that come WILL be raised up at the last day.

No sir, it seems apparent that I am in conformity with Him.

 

Oh please! I haven't placed and personal attacks against you but here you go with this garbage.

I find it amazing that words have meanings and that you toss out those meanings for a personal view. One can not use with integrity the word resposibility unless one admits to ability because one is dependant upon the other. To use one and divorce it from the other, is to remove all power and meaning of the word since each gives definition to the other. That is plain and simple fact and scripture establishes it as such.

 

Yes, this is the hurdle they cannot clear.

When I was a boy there was a fellow named Mark in my neighborhood. Everyday around 5 o'clock his father would go out in the yard and whistle which meant it was time to come home. This guy could really whistle, you could hear it many blocks away.

Many times we would be playing football or some other game and would hear Mark's father whistle. Now, most of the time Mark would run right home, but sometimes he would not because he wanted to continue playing.

Whether he went home or not he was called or drawn.

Can you understand that?

If he went home was he drawn? Yes.

If he disobeyed was he drawn? Yes.

If he went home, his father gave him supper.

If he failed to obey, he missed supper.

If he had supper, it was given to him by his father.

If he missed supper, it was not given to him by his father.

Does this make sense to you?

 

This was intended to be "civil"?!?

The Arminian/Non-cal viewpoint, in my opinion, does not rest on Scripture alone, but on man's own reasoning of these issues.

 

Lack of ability limits obligation? That's the old Pelagian line.

God does indeed judge and condemn those with inability to comply with His demands. They are sinners who will be consigned to eternal misery -- and justly so.

 

The people given by the Father to Jesus are the very same people drawn by the Father.

What a reductionistic view of God! In your view God merely knows what's going to transpire. The biblical fact is that the Lord knows His own and they can't will their way out of a wet paper bag. The Lord brings them to Himself.

You are denying the Word of God. All the drawn will be raised up -- of necessity they are saved. This is basic 101 theology.

Are you saying it's only a possibility?! No, it will inevitably follow that they will indeed come.

The spirit of Pelagius is blowing.

 

Do you feel good when you say such untruths? You have just claimed that RB thinks God is unjust. Stop saying such utterly vile things.

Wow. Just wow. In your view election means each and every individual is chosen. That smacks of universalism.

Since every single person is a sinner deserving of the everlasting wrath of God -- no one has the right to say that God is under obligation in any way to anyone.

You need to seriously ponder Romans 9, especially verses 13-23.

 

So? The Old Baptists seen the allegory in it eons ago.

----------------------------------

The Effectual Call

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1436141#post1436141

Christ speaks directly to the dead with no go-between:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. Jn 5:25

To the son of the widow of Nain He said,”Young man, I say unto thee, Arise”; to Jairus' daughter He said, “Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise.”

When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, “ he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.” Take note, He specifically called Lazarus by name, He didn't just say 'come forth'; every dead body in those tombs would have come alive had He done that.

His commandments to those that stood by were to “Take ye away the stone” and “Loose him, and let him go,” because he was 'bound hand and foot with grave-clothes'.

So it is with every child of God, “you did he make alive, when ye were dead “, and the function of the church is to remove those grave clothes, and to edify to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. Feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. That's the real 'great commission' of the Church.

 

Yes, everyone makes mistakes. There are biblical hermemeutics for such and to just say 'hey, this looks like a good illistration for my personal view' has never been attached to it. As I said, it must have supporting passages else where which also reference that story to be all illistrative or an allegorical point of that doctrinal view.

 

In the laws God gave Israel, he commanded that they show no partiality to one man over another. But if God elects certain men to mercy, and others to wrath then God would be breaking his own law.

The very laws of our own country are based on this law of God. You have the same rights as me. The poor have the same protections under the law as the rich and powerful. All men must be tried in a court of law and allowed a defense.

The fact that you do not understand this concept is amazing to say the least.

I do not believe everyone is chosen. I believe only those who choose to trust and believe on Jesus are elected. And this makes God just, because every man is given the opportunity to trust Christ of his own free will. If a man rejects Christ, it is then the man's fault, not God's, and God is just in punishing him.

And not all that are drawn are chosen. Several times I have posted the parable of the wedding feast. How does Jesus start this parable?

Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

There you go right there. These two verses show the doctrine of Irresistable Grace error. God sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding and they would not come.

Was it God's will they should come? Yes

Did God call or bid them to come? Yes

Did they come? No

At at the end of the passage Jesus says;

Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

This verse shows your view of Election error. God calls or draws all men to him. But only those who come in faith (those who obeyed God and came to the wedding feast with a wedding garment) are elected (chosen).

Maybe it was not given you to understand this parable.

 

Hold on here RB, I think you need to own up to the fact my statement is responding to your attack which did not actually deal with my post but your opinions about how certain person/people derive their theology.

Here you set forth an attack by making the declaration that what I give is not derived from the scriptures (biblical).
And yes, you would consider it an attack if I or anyone else made that statement about your views. You will notice I have not stated such about your views even though I disagree with them because I know that your views come from your understanding of the scriptures just as mine do.

If words do not have particular meanings but that we can make them up as we go along then I would agree with you. However I can not change the meaning of 'virgin birth' to suit my theological view anymore than you can change what establishes the definition of 'responsible'.
When the term 'responsible' is used in a judicial sense it must be used in the sense that which is upholds the concepts of being just and right. That is where you definition keeps failing you 'scripturally'.

This is a reasoned argument:
The Law itself does not judge a person in using your defintion and if God gave the law (which is a reflection of His perfection) there is no other reasonable argument but that God Himself does not judge a person responsible who was not able.
However when a person can show over and over again in scripture where God only judges those who have willingly rejected, denied, or disregarded God's revealed truths (which I can) and never once can we find God judging a man based solely upon his falleness, then you have scriptural support for that reasoned argument making it entirely bibilcal.

Second, it is from those same scriptures we understand also the nature of God and His characteristics and therefore exactly what God will and will not do based upon them. I have given many scriptures which show that God does not hold a person responsible unless they are able/enabled, of which it is most notable you have not dealt with none of those scriptures which I have given in 'many' of my posts. You seem to only deal with small or fringe aspects in those post but seem to never actually engage the main points (of which those aspects are dealing).

Therefore your charge of my position not being 'biblical' is in fact, at best, wrong. It is not theologically reformed but that does not equate to not being biblical by any stretch. Theology is nothing more than mans reasoned understanding of the workings of God as he sees them in scripture. I'm sure you would agree that one's theology is not scripture and as such should never be elevated to such a status.

This is exactly what your theology is.

This is a second attack made by you based upon your opinions which do not support the facts. It is due to this post that I gave this retort:

So it is not the Non-Cal who is guilty of not being civil in our conversation brother, but if began first with you.

The above is a literary fact based upon the established meaning of the word in the judicial sense.

Scripture proves my contention over yous in this and let me show you how:
1. Can you find me one place in scripture where it states mentions God condemning/judging men based upon their natural fallenness?

I however have a vast mulitude of scriptures that state specifically God judges them for their willful disregard, denial and rejection of God's commands

 

So if man is capable of becoming righteous by his own free will, then what do we need the Holy Spirit for?

 

See RB, this is what I meant by 'undeniable ignorance.. that stems from a lack of understanding.

It isn't an attack against him it is a plain observation that he does not have even a basic understanding of the Arminian nor even the mainline Non-Cal view and therefore ignorant (though not in the pejorative sense).

 

Who said man is capable of making himself righteous? The scriptures say that if we believe on Christ righteouness shall be imputed to us.

Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Man is given the free will choice of believeing on Christ or not. And this is shown in this passage. Did Abraham believe when he was spiritually alive or dead? He believed when he was spiritually dead, and THEN righteousness was imputed to him afterward.

You cannot get it because you are predisposed to believe that God first regenerates a man and then he believes. But these verses show Abraham believed when it should have been impossible for him or his wife to bare children. In that sense they were dead, and these verses point that out twice. But even though Abraham knew he was dead, that is, way past child-bearing age, he still believed God.

If Abraham and Sarah were young and vital, why would it take faith to believe they would bare children? That is perfectly normal. If Abraham knew he and Sarah had been regenerated, why would it take faith to believe they would bare children?

No, it took great faith for Abraham and Sarah to believe because it was physically impossible for them to bare children. Now this is great faith.

And notice verse 24 says "if" we believe. If God causes you to believe, there would be no "if".