Where Arminians should critique Calvinism

When your entire argument is based on distorting both the context of the passage and its context as compared to the rest of scripture.... all we have to do is point out what is actually said and what you have assumed.

Pick another tactic.

 

-------------------------------------
quote - Bob said --

The "text says" that the evaluation is done based on deeds.

(and so ALL EXAMPLES given IN THE TEXT above are of contrasting DEEDS)

Did you notice that "in the text"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well - that pretty much says it all!!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Typical...

Of course if anyone checks out my response they will see that I didn't just declare "nope" and stop.

 

Your attempts to obfuscate AWAY from the details IN Romans 2 are not working. IN Romans 2 it is EXPLICITLY a sequence of CONTRASTS between deeds of ONE type vs another. </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't obfuscate anything. I stated a simple fact. The text says that the goodness of God leads us to repentance. Of course you would rather not deal with that since it proves my contention that you are ignoring context to facilitate your misuse of the passage.

God only accepts those who are repentant... no deed done by one acting on their own "goodness" is pleasing to God as it gives glory to them- not Him.

 

Indeed - many Calvinists try to "Spin" Romans 2 "AS IF" the Gospel Judgment IT HIGHLIGHTS in Romans 2 CAN only result in ALL LOST. But the TEXT is EXPLICIT in showing DEEDS that are CONTRASTED with rewards that are appropriate to each contrast.

How devastating to your point.</font>[/QUOTE] Not at all. Rewards only pertain to the saved. This passage doesn't deal with why they accept Christ except when it says the goodness of God leads us to repentance.

I don't know. Do you think you are ready to accept the implications of the context?

 

Wow. At least you have come up with a solution... not a valid one but it does answer a question.

You share this in common with hyper-calvinists... you know that right? They believe that God can elect people without them hearing the gospel very similar to you.

Of course both you and they are wrong according to Romans 10 and other scriptures that declare that a response to the gospel of Jesus Christ is necessary.

BTW, notice you you have to change the word "Law" to "Word" to make you explanation stick... that is thus saith Bob, not thus saith the Lord.

You aren't an inspired prophet like White are you?

 

You missed the point entirely.

The Calvinist argument was that Christ is wrong in Matt 7 where HE claims that the GOOD tree will be SEEN to show GOOD fruit and by their fruits you shall know them.

The proof is given EVEN with the LAST HOUR conversion as stated above.

You simply attempt to misdirect and obfuscate away from the point AS IF the only way to have a last minute conversion is to have Christ literally crucified next to you.

Misdirection and obfuscation -- at least you do it "consistently".

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]No Bob. You are evading the issue and it seems to be by design.

God was partial to the two thieves beside Jesus. One repented the other didn't.... hundreds of others didn't get the chance... therefore God must have been partial against them by your interpretation.

I wish you would deal directly with my responses rather than things I didn't say.

 

Well - that pretty much says it all!!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Of course this is really what I said:

Of course by pretending that I gave an unsupported answer, Bob can start an argument rather than having to answer the points of my response.

 

I pointed to the specifics IN the text - "you know the ones you refuse to quote in your responses"

Here the "TEXT" is again for your avoiding pleasure.

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”. Paul here identifies the “impartial” basis of God’s judgment. Instead of His simply “arbitrarily selecting” some to favor and others to ignore – ALL are judged according to deeds IN the context of the “call to repentance” of vs 4.

He speaks of this again in 2Cor 5 talking about future judgment and judged based on deeds “whether they be good or evil”.

Notice that in these first 6 verses we have an Arminian-style motivation - not to engage in man's faulty judgment of others. And there is no sense or expectation that this sin is not to stop or just to continue because we are totally depraved. Rather the argument is to stop.

Further - if this chapter is only about the failing case, only about the wrath of God - then we will not find success, mercy, reward but only condemnation, wrath, punishment. Let's now let the text reveal which way it will go.

Here is the “succeeding case” explicitly listed by Paul. And it is in the context of God - leading to repentance. We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

Some have supposed that a “judgment” that is impartial as Paul points to in vs 6 and 11 must “only have failing cases”. But Paul shows in vs 7 that such is not the case. The “Good News” does not require God to arbitrarily be “partial to the FEW of Matt 7” as some have supposed. Rather it allows for God to be “impartial” and to SAVE mankind on that basis!

The “Failing case”: Clearly a contrast is being introduced "but to those who are selfish" - contrasted with what? Those who repent, seek eternal glory and honor and persevere. Persevere in what?

You must be on the right path to be approved in perseveringly staying on the right path. It is obvious I know, but worth noting.

So God has now contrasted the good and the wicked, those who persevere on the right path and those who are not even on it.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" because God will “favor the few over the many”. He does not let us suppose that others are lost for doing evil while the “favored” ones do evil and go to heaven. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or magic phrase) allowing some of the rebels in.

But basic to Paul’s solution is the affirmation that God is NOT partial when it comes to the Gospel – when it comes to Salvation. That means that He is NOT favoring the “few” of Matt 7 over the “many” so that He can save the “Few”. Rather – impartiality demands that ALL be given the same salvation-sequence. ALL have the Holy Spirit convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8) and ALL have the Drawing of God (John 12:32) and ALL have the Lord Jesus Christ standing at the door and knocking – and ALL have the SAME promise of the New Covenant that “changes the TREE itself” Matt 7 and writes the Law of God on the heart (Heb 8).

Rather than simply “favoring some over others” the system defined above is “impartial” as God HIMSELF is “Impartial”. This Gospel truth was a huge problem for the Jews and is a big problem for Calvinism.
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

We "see" BOTH the SUCCESSFUL and the failing cases that RESULT from that IMPARTIAL judgment of ALL.

It is impossible to "ignore the details IN THE TEXT" as you are doing Scott - without AVOIDING the text altogether as you are SEEN to do in each of your posts.

How can this not be obvious to you? I don't see how you would view that tactic as something that might work here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As I said Scott YOU are the one that posted the challenge about fruits NOT BEING seen and no impartial judgment being possible for someone with a last minute conversion.

Do you want to see your OWN post that went to that point "again"??

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ScottJ
If two men having committed equal severity of sin die with one being saved just before death and the other being lost, are you trying to say that God is being impartial by judging one righteous and the other an object of wrath?

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

Interesting that you never quote THIS (as often as I post it FOR you) and you don't want to quote the Romans 2 "details" that I have posted here SHOWING your errors - either.

You are simply avoiding inconvenient "Details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "text says" that the evaluation is done based on deeds.

(and so ALL EXAMPLES given IN THE TEXT above are of contrasting DEEDS) </font>[/QUOTE]I just get to keep REPOSTING the Romans 2 "details" that you can not bring yourself to quote or address.

You are making this too easy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Because you DON't follow up on your OWN question that IS given a response.

Becuase you DON'T address the details IN Romans 2 though they are repeatedly quoted here.

...

But if avoidance is your only tactic - ok I will respond to the new direction you want to go -- leaving Romans 2 behind entirely "apparently".

You provide your own circular argument above charging the OPPOSITE of what we SEE claimed in Romans 2 - when you deal with the Thief on the cross.

In the case of the two thieves - you "assume" that God arbitrarily MADE the one repent (you merely ASSUME Calvinism rather than PROVING your point). You then use your own ASSUMED point as your "salient" point of your argument. A circular argument perfected my friend.

The text does NOT SAY "God MADE the one repent but had no concern for the other" -- so you "insert that idea" and then use your own eisegesis as PROOF that God "partially PICKED the one over the other".

But in the ACTUAL BIBLE - the point made in Romans 2 would be that IN THE CONTEXT of the mercy of God that calls ALL men EVERYWHERE to REPENT - the ONE thief reponds and shows DEEDS that were appropriate to repentance while the other does not.

How shocking that Romans 2 would work there - eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I can read what the text says and have no reason to take a pen knife to it to make it fit my preconceptions as you do.

You want to expand the context of "impartial" beyond all reasonable limits. That shows desperation on your part to find a "proof" against calvinism.

If you want to believe in a system of merit for salvation then by all means just say so and I will gladly leave you alone. However, if you want to show any respect to the concept of grace in your interpretation of Romans 2, you are going to have to stop ignoring the fact that our repentance is caused by the goodness of God, not our goodness. This repentance is prerequisite for "doing" anything worthy of God's favor and reward.

 

WEll said and stated Bob.

 

Better said and stated Scott.

 

Best said and stated Tim!

 

WEll said and IN the state of biblical reasoning, Bob!

 

This could go on ad infinitum!

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
I pointed to the specifics IN the text - "you know the ones you refuse to quote in your responses"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize that you and some of the other Calvinist posters see no point in actually noticing the disconfirming and devastating details in Romans 2 (that I keep quoting) so you don't quote them, don't exegete them and don't respond to the devastating case they make against Calvinism - when the SHOW the context for God's impartiality.

I also realize that nothing would please you more than to ingore that chapter all day long - as you have been doing.

My only point here was to show that this "calvinism-hides-from-the-Bible" tactic of yours is actually "proving" that Calvinism "needs" to dodge the chapter.

Exegesis may be foreign to you when it comes to chapters like Romans 2 -- but it has always been the friend of the Arminian POV.

Enjoy your model of Bible avoidance on the topic of God's being "impartial" and that impartial judgement resulting in the ROMANS 2 DETAILS of some saved and some lost.

In Christ,

Bob