The Christ of arminianism

GE:

This time I am falling in into a thread I haven't followed from the beginning (had not time).

But what I see here, to me seems rubbish straight away.

First I have looked over and over at "Lev 1:2", and could observe no-"where God Himself says man has his "own voluntary will"!" I cannot fathom how one might be expected to "Try and escape that Divine utterance!"
Somebody somehow is -- what shall I say? -- confused.

Arminius:
". . . Tell us how OWN and voluntary DO NOT MEAN man has HIS OWN will apart from God, and can obey or disobey accordingly. I'm all ears"

GE:

Very easy! You've said it yourself:
". . . apart from God . . .";

But NOT, ". . . can obey or disobey accordingly ...", because "accordingly", i.e., "apart from God", "man", "can" NOT, "obey". For certain not!
And, "accordingly", i.e., "apart from God", "man", "can" but "disobey" - no matter what!

 

BR:

GE:

BobRyan, you draw your own carricature of 'Calvinism', then for the museum archives catch your vomitting over it up on a sheet of writing.

You have not once allowed 'calvinism' to witness for itself.

You refuse to keep in mind the centuries of 'Calvinist' proclamation of the Gospel against a universe of Romish Arminianism.

 

I stand by the quote of JohnP that PROVES the salient points of the scenario drawn - while you simply gloss over the details that disprove our slander.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=954072&postcount=52

I stand by the quote of Beloved57 that PROVES the salient point of the Calvinist scenario drawn - while you simply gloss over the detail that disproves your own slander.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=954068&postcount=50

And then YOU BLAME me for paying attention to the details you are ignoring????

How "instructive".

This is the kind of shell-game revisionist-history that Calvinists have become known for -- as already predicted here -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=954072&postcount=52

Then GE steps forward to DEMONSTRATE the very deny-first revise-second methods of Calvinism that were predicted in that link!

How can Calvinism ever succeed when it is so determined to expose it's own flaws in plain view??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Our Sabbatarian has coime over here to jump in the fray without a context! Brilliant. That is how you do "exegesis" on the Sunday issue also. But I beg your pardon, it was Lev 1:3, not 1:2.

1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male
without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the
door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

That's the end of Calvinism. And this was said about people not born again. They are "dead in sins", yet they still have THEIR OWN voluntary will, and the Lord went out of his way to make sure people offered this sacrifice of their own voluntary will. The type here is impossible not to see. ANYONE can come to the Lord and he comes not under compulsion of any man, nor of the Lord, he simply answers the call of God of his own voluntary will. Arminianism in a nutshell.

A Johnp is saying the godly, humble and even-tempered Jacob Arminius, who endured so much slander, abuse, schemes and harrasment from Calvinists, and who did it with such Christlike grace, and who continued to patiently write and refute them all, with a very calm demeanor, while his Calvinist contemporaries had people killed, jailed, burned, exiled, etc, Johnp says Arminius is a liar? I'm afraid not! The man who makes that LYING accusation is the liar, and it is a man who follows a murderer. Our Lord said Satan was a liar and a murderer from the begininng. Lying and murder go together, so its safe to assume your hero was the liar, for he most certainly was a murderer.

Jacob Arminius is a great example of how the Lord had REAL CHRISTIANS in the times when Protestants acted JUST LIKE ROMAN CATHOLICS in persecuting others. The Lord has always had two groups simultaniusly professing his Name--the seed of Isaac, as seen in Arminius, the Ana Baptists, the Baptists and others, and then the Ishmaelites seen in the Mgesterial Reformers who persecuted and even shed the blood of God's people. Those most guilty were the ones who believed God was a control freak. That doctrine makes for murderers and oppression. Therefore it is a doctrine of devils. By their fruit ye shall know them.

 

Another prophecy fulfilled (sooner than I thought)...

Arminius
Banned

So long...we hardly knew you (thankfully)...

 

I would not be happy to run into him...I'd run as far away from him as possible. Anyone stating the blasphemy that God is not sovereign shouldn't be listened to for anything having to do with theology.

 

"Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"


Our Lord will be made to suffer and die at the hands of the religious leaders? Absurd, says Peter, who, as Jesus said is “not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Absurd, yes ( from a human perspective), but true, and colossally beautiful as well. Peter recognized who Jesus was. He saw the miracles, the might, and the power. But he couldn’t understand an all-powerful master who would humble himself to be beaten and killed by the teachers of the Law of Moses. So he foolishly rejected the idea. He knew his master, but not yet so fully that he knew him in the full scope of his mercy and kindness, which is to truly know him. I think it might have hit home when Jesus washed Peters feet.
God is as gracious as he is all-powerful. To deny the fundamental, god-given element of choice is to deny an integral facet of our creator’s character. God values this choice so much that he introduced an antithesis of his ways into our reality system; sin i.e. our way. He is so kind as to stay his will, to let his desire that all should not perish become unrealized so as to provide us, he creations, with the opportunity to choose. What an amazing God.

 

I remember a certain young ruler, who Christ called to him, and was rejected.

 

I pulled one of those jumping in a thread without reading it first. I did agree with him on the one thing though.

To tell you the truth though, I don't agree with the OP either.

I also, do not believe it takes away from God's Sovereignity to make man with a choice of "good or evil". Who else has the power to do that?

If everything is "according to the good pleasure of his will," and it is that, to make us able to choose, then who is to say God can't do that, if God is Sovereign. Seems to me that would be taking away from His Sovereignity, and telling God, "you can't do that".

 

pLug, welcome.

Read the passage Mark 10:17ff. Jesus did not call the young man to him. The young ruler came to him, asked him how to get to heaven. Jesus told him. The man walked away.

Not sure of the point you're trying to make, but I don't think this passage, or your mis-interpretation of it, will help you make it.

 

Well said sir!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Amen brother!

And it appears that our Calvinist friend DHK would agree with this - perhaps he is 3 point Calvinist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you attacking his salvation.
You need to go and re-read the rules by which you promised to abide by:

 

I don’t quite follow. Are you saying that arminianism is a damning philosophy?

 

Sincere thanks for the welcome, but have to disagree with you. Jesus clearly called this man to salvation.

“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”

Bam. An incredible response to the young ruler asking “the good master” an academic philosophical question concerning the nature of salvation. The young man has a moral dilemma that he wants to bring before what he regards as a good master.

“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.”

Suddenly this young find himself face to face, not with the good master, but God himself.
He provides a distinctly non-academic, non-philosophical answer, one that cuts to the core of the young man. The same call that made the disciples drop their nets and take up their cross: Follow me.
In rejecting this call, the young man went away exposed, and sorrowful.

This example leads me to believe that salvation is offered to all, and some reject it. This defies Calvinistic theology. And I think it proves my point exceptionally well.

 

If I didn't have a scriptural answer, I might of said that but doubt it.

 

I could have sworn that this was Arminius' position on Calvinists.... did I miss something?:laugh: