Featured “I was predestined to be an Arminian or I chose to be a Calvinist.”

Because you don't think it fair or just. That's the point.

 

I am glad we agree that there is a difference between the two faiths. Where we disagree then is the source of that faith.

Well, the first thing I would point out about this verse and its surrounding passage is to go back to Chap. 9:1 and see we are contrasting the ordinances of divine service in the old covenant compared to the new. So then we are moving in the direction of "what are the ordinances of divine service in the new?

Heb 10:38 then says:

so we are speaking about the just, and not the unjust.

So, in this light:

I would say that the one diligently seeking him in this verse is already just... or justified. That is to say he already possesses that gift of faith. But, in terms of divine service, the diligently seeking of God must be by faith if it is to please God.

Heb 12:1-2:

Otherwise, you have God rewarding the unjust

rewarder here (misthapodotes) speaks of one who pays a wage; that is for work done. If then we make the reward salvation, then this verse is speaking of salvation as a wage for work done (ie. diligently seeking by faith). If this is the case then it is no more grace but a paid wage.

I wouldn't argue though that God gifts us faith so that he may please himself, I just don't think that is what Heb 11:6 is explicitly teaching. Can I not please him through the use of the faith he has given me? Does he not do all of these things for us in order that he may please himself?

Phil 2:13

 

Not at all. That isn't the issue. I simply think it false. I used to have a major problem (for instance) thinking that "Eternal" damnation or punishment is (in my limited mind) "fair" or "just" (as many do) but it still doesn't stop me (or others) from believing in it, because the Bible clearly teaches it.

The Bible, however, simply doesn't teach the Theology that you adhere to...if it did, I would believe it, even though I thought it somewhat dis-tasteful at first, but as all humans are capable of doing...I would compartmentalize it appropriately as we all do with anything we think to be (at least on the out-set) to be counter to our notion of "fairness" or "justice". I know myself well enough to know that if Reformed Theology were indeed Biblical, I would (given some time) process it enough to make it palatable enough to swallow, even if it were a harsh pill. It wouldn't be the hardest pill to swallow. I have swallowed harder pills...sir....just none quite so absurd. Your diagnosis is simply false...you didn't learn that protest from Arminians, you learned that protest from Calvinists, since they think it an easy objection to "shoot-down" and therefore they go ahead and make that objection for us, and then shoot it down in front of us as though beating up 95 year old women proved physical prowess or something. I wouldn't make that objection....it's a stupid objection. You didn't learn that objection from interracting with Arminians as much as you learned it from Calvinists...and they do a poor job of speaking for those who don't agree with them.

Indeed, I am far enough along to understand that if we accept (only by faith at first) a doctrine we cannot easily agree with or seems inherently "unfair" to us....that given time, the Spirit begins to reward our faithful acceptance of it, and subsequently teaches us or grants us the wisdom and understanding to ultimately comprehend how very "fair" and "right" it is. The Bible tells us that the Spirit will do this for us:

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

This verse demonstrates your contention false...Many Arminians have learned to accept many a "hard pill" by faith, and then claim the promise that God will ultimately grant us the wisdom to see it differently, and according to his point of view...I have ZERO doubt that if "Calvinism" were Scriptural....I would accept it's truth, in faith, knowing that God will absolutely fulfill his promise to grant the wisdom to ultimately understand it's ultimate "justness".

It is foolish diagnosese like yours above, and the constant accusations of those not familiar with truths like the one above about people constantly "resisting" teachings....and blah blah blah...that make this argument of Reformists weak....You don't so much hear non-Calvinists protesting it's "un-fairness" (not informed ones anyway) as you hear Calvinist apologists TELLING you that we protest it's "un-fairness". We don't "resist" or "think un-fair" your Theology, NEAR as much as we think it simply absurd.

 

ROFL!!!

Dear Aaron ...... ahhh....better yet, i will PM you about this! Wait for it, wait for it......:laugh:

 

Let's say, just for kicks and grins, that the Bible clearly teaches that it was God's will that Adam fall. That he made Adam not incorruptible so that he could become corrupted and disobey according to His plan. That it was not possible that Adam could do other than fall.

Would you concede then that God would be righteous in doing so?

 

The immediate answer is sure...absolutely...and I would have no problem with it. But, the Bible would still then be ordering us to accept an absurdity. If God wants us to believe an obvious absurdity, then sure, I don't care, I'll do whatever he wants since he is indeed God after all, and if it were or is, indeed his will that I "accept" or "concede" that, then so be it. I wouldn't have any choice in the matter after all would I? You are speaking to me as though I had a "choice" in the matter of what I believed....and that is not possible per Calvinism, and the OP no? Why speak on those terms? I have no "choice" to believe any given way either through conviction or merely for the sake of "kicks and grins" (but I digress). If he wants me to sacrifice reason and accept an absurd proposition with a mere appeal to power...or, alternatively, if God resorts to "argumentum ad bacculum" as most Calvinists seem to think that he does...then, sure, why not?

It would be of little ultimate consequence to me to sacrifice intellectual honesty to agree to his proposition if it were what would apparently make him happy. It would be like a defendant pleading guilty to a crime he didn't "technically" commit in order to gain the "plea-deal" from a prosecutor who has the power of force to threaten him with a far worse charge....that he might have "actually" committed. But if the Prosecutor utilizes the threat of force to get you to concede something lesser...then heck, I'll claim to believe whatever he wants me to. Consider your own statements:

It simply happens to be the case that these two statements, as understood by the average Calvinist, are a logically contradictory and absurd notion.....But, if God's only rejoinder to my mere pointing out that fact, is to say....

.....

Then, fine...I don't care, allow him to "argumentum ad bacculum" all he wants. He is God, and he doesn't owe me an explanation. I should be able to "concede" or "confess" it publically as true, but yet remain within my right to say that, well, unfortunately, according to all known or obvious a-priori laws of reasonable logic...God tells us to believe something deductively absurd.

Tell you what, I'll confess this as passionately as the day is long, but, until I find the verse that states that I can't point out that God has incidentally told us something as logically absurd as 2=2 AND 2=5...can I at least admit to the sinner that although God is absolutely right, and the Bible is perfectly correct and true in all of it's details...it does happen to command us to believe the logically absurd?

How about instead....(just for kicks and grins) we re-think what we are assuming those verses are actually teaching us....maybe that would be a little easier no?

 

The closest post I have seen to understanding, Faith. Thank you WITBOTL

Hab. 2:4 Behold, his soul is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Not much is known about, Habakkuk. I am going to assume he was a prophet to the house of Judah. If so he would have been a prophet to them who were given the law and the following would have applied.

But first: The just shall live by his faith. That is the just will be given life because of the faith of someone other than his own self. Proof.

These of the house of Judah had been given the law. They were under the law. Paul says the law was a schoolmaster, they were under a schoolmaster.

They were unjustified.

And that this was before the Faith came. That they being under the law, the schoolmaster they were shut up unto the Faith which had not been revealed.

After the Faith did come they were no longer under the schoolmaster, the law.

Heb. 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of the faith;

Something Jesus the Christ did was the Faith.

The Faith that justifies and the Faith by which life will be given.

What was the Faith of Christ that justified/made righteous? Romans 5:10 & 9 first parts For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; Much more then, being now justified by his blood,

THIS VERY POINT HE WAS DEAD. What does Paul say about him being in that state, that is dead? 1 Cor 15:16-18 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith (his death) vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Romans 5:10 last part much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

By his resurrected life.

The just shall be saved (given life) by his (Jesus the Christ's) faith.


Jesus took our sin on himself and died for us with only this promise of God.

The hope of eternal life. The sinless human Jesus the human, Son of God was obedient unto death even the death of the cross for you and me with only the promise of the hope of being raised from the dead. the obedience of Faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

The Father by his grace raised from the dead the Son, the sinless one, upon whom the sin of the world had been lain.

Jesus who had been made SIN for us God the Father washed by regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit; God the Father raised him from the dead and gave him the promise of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit is life) Acts 2:32,33 The blood of Jesus washed sin from us and regeneration washed sin from Jesus by renewing of the Spirit. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Then and only then could the Spirit be given us. "If I go not away the Comforter will not come," said Jesus. Paul asked, "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of Faith.

 

HOS,

When you say this:

I find this problematic in that it is not for you to "accept"/Reject!

When God grants truth to a person...it is given...not offered like a multiple choice problem. This when broken down leads to an rejection{which you abhor anyone saying it to you} of truth of romans 8:7-9 and other passages speaking of what man has lost the ability to do.

The truth exists before you were born and does not change because you accept or reject it.

The unsaved can seek a God of their imagination ,and indeed they do worldwide as they bow to their idols. No one seeks .or "accepts" the biblical God on his terms

Mans fallen notions of what is reight and wrong have nothing to do with revealed truth. Aaron is posting very solid and helpful posts. Some make as if both truth and error are both okay....but it will not be found to be so on the last day.

That does not mean we have to wait to the last day to find out either ,which is another excuse some make rather than dealing truthfully with the revealed texts.

 

No.....but your commentary is stunning....:laugh: I give up....pointless to continue. :laugh:

 

So, the argument isn't that the Scriptures don't say it. The argument is that it's foolishness. Therefore, the verses must, because it seems absurd, be teaching something else.

That's my point. The argument is always, "Why doth he yet find fault?" Let me paraphrase Paul:

You will then say, it's absurd to think that God can find fault with Pharoah or Esau or anyone else, for who hath resisted His will?
​

The preaching of the cross is foolishness to the carnal mind, yet which is the real fool: God, or the one judging the cross as foolish?

​

 

Just to wish to offer apologies here.

David

 

But He does so in Righteousness, men loved darkness rather than light, maybe we should ignore John in the so called light of modern theology? God judges.

 

God allows for his own to have minds and wills to a degree, so up to us to "rightly divide the word of God"

He gave us His Spirit and Bibles and proper tools/ways to read the bible....