1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A Question for Arminians (or no-name theology believers)

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by glfredrick, Mar 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Congratulations, you have just made the requirement and the application of the passover's lamb's blood to the door posts (a foreshadowing of Christ, btw) a moot point and a silly requirement as the death of the lamb was sufficient to save the Israelites.

    I'll stick to what the Bible says.
     
  2. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    262
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ever read what Christ had to say about gossips?
    MB
     
  3. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm not gossiping. I'm writing in plain view of you and everyone else.
     
  4. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    262
    Faith:
    Baptist
    glfredrick;
    Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    Hmmmmm: Confession is made unto Salvation. That means with out confession there is no Salvation.

    Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
    Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
    Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
    Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
    Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
    Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
    Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    If faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then obviously your wrong about hearing coming by regeneration.
    MB
     
  5. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    We're not debating that point, but thanks for the Scripture. :thumbsup:
     
  6. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey GL? Did you miss my post 63?

    I addressed your OP and asked you a question in return. This freewiller (can't call me arminian because I believe he too had things wrong with his theology) isn't afraid to answer your suppositions. But I doubt you'll like my answer any better than the other answers you've recieved. :)
     
  7. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    I did. I'm mostly interested in discussion about the topic that I proposed, and not all the side talk that is going on in this or most of the other threads. I think your response may have gotten burried in the side talk.

    Which of the E-s did you pick?
     
  8. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    ACK! Post 62, GL. Page 7.

    I can't type worth a flip today!
     
  9. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay... I remember this just failed to come back to it the next day. Some interesting questions raised about the OP. (THANKS)

    You already know the problems with being a universalist, yet you continue in that light. Makes me wonder why, but that is your belief and I'll not belittle it.

    You would have to...

    Are you suggesting that unbelief is not a sin? I don't think that you can support that via the Scriptures. Jesus had several occasions where He went toe-to-toe with people who came to Him proclaiming some form of human righteousness. Yet in all those cases the individual walked away without the satisfaction of Christ saying, "Well done good and faithful servant." Why? Because they could not believe that Jesus Christ was Lord and Savior, the only begotten Son of God, Immanuel. They could not get past their human-centered efforts and merely "believe" that Jesus could save them.

    Concerning atonement made and atonement applied, I was waiting for someone to get to that point. Several sort of tried, but they did so in a way that did not support the OP proposition.

    Here is the deal... We have God, in 3 persons -- the Trinity -- who purpose before the foundations of the world to do His will, and that everything in His will would be accomplished. In so purposing, He elected persons as yet uncreated to be the objects of His attention. He willed that there would be an atonement by God the Son (Christ) for those whom He elected, and Christ indeed fulfilled every requirement and part of God's purposed will in the atonement. The Holy Spirit was present throughout, and is now the driving force behind the completion of God's purpose before the foundations of the world. To say otherwise is to say that God is A) unable to purpose His will, B) that God is unable to accomplish His will or C) that God is less than His divine attributes (like almighty, omniscient, etc.) indicate, which is blasphemy and leads to heretical belief.

    The atonement was purposed to cover the elect from before the foundation of the world -- and it did -- each or all of the elect. To suggest that Christ's atonement was performed for persons who were or are not capable of salvation is to suggest that Christ's work (God's work) is impotent, rendering Him something less than the God of the Bible -- the God who is almighty and the Creator of all things.

    That is why there can be no general atonement with specific application.

    Unlike your (very human) example, God indeed has the ability to cause persons to WANT to come to get their tickets, and He indeed does just that. He does not go about and force tickets into one's hand. That does not happen. Everyone knows that from both the Scriptures and from life examples. But, He can cause life circumstances and the preaching of the Word, with the power of the Holy Spirit (who as God can be omnipresent) so that the individual for whom the atonement was purposed will in fact become one of God's own, though they may not even understand the mechanism behind God's actions to accomplish His perfect will.

    In your allusion above, we can consider that those who were holding back out of fear or some other consideration, would see the first group have their free gift. They would see the great rejoicing, and after watching for some time, realize that they too could have the same offer -- and they willingly come! What of those who simply will not trust the gift or the giver of the gift? Therein lies the flaw in your allusion. God already selected all those who He would cause to want the gift. That is what election is. No one will have a gift if they are not caused by God to come and all who have a gift will come. God is perfect in His economy and He does not waste a drop of the precious blood of Jesus.

    Who set before them life or death? They certainly did not do the "setting before." God is doing what God always does -- giving the elect a chance to respond to Him -- and there is never a coercion about the way He does it.
     
  10. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You kinda have to know what the Bible says to do that. You'll find my description of the sin and trespass offerings to be clearly stated in Lev. 4:1 - 6:7
     
  11. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Likewise, you will find the passover account in Exodus 12 if you haven't read it before.
     
  12. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I'm suggesting it is a sin just like any other sin. In the same manner, it cannot be forgiven (attonement applied) until belief occurs, though the payment for that sin is available.

    You and I are closer in belief than it appears on the surface.

    One difference I see in the above quote. You appear to think the criteria for God's election is His abitrary decision (ie God chooses "whosoever will" according to some unknown to us factors) while I believe the criteria for God's election is a decision to believe by the individual.

    Therefore, while Christ's blood will certainly only cover the sins of believers, it is available to cover the sins of every man if only they would chose to believe.

    The second thing that sets you and I apart is the part of the quote I bolded. God has told us plainly that He is willing for none to perish, but all to come to repentance (as it says in my sig). This is the verse that most often gets me accused of being a universalist! However, I don't believe all will be saved in the end. I'd like it, but just as I can't get past the verses that deal with free will, I also can't get past the verses that deal with the consequences of dying as an unbeliever.

    The admission God makes in 2 Peter 3:9 doesnt make him less of a God or impotent in the least. It makes Him more, more everything, because in essence this admission makes Him capable of giving way to our will. Most gods are dictators, but our God is capable of allowing us to decide if we want Him. He doesn't need to force us into belief or ease us into thinking we want to believe (which strikes me as a form of deception and God cannot decieve) and He is grieved when we don't believe, but He allows us our rebellion and the very grave consequences thereof.

    Here again is a difference between us. It isn't about God's ability. None of us, I hope, believe that God doesn't have the ability to do exactly what He wants! But what He wants is us to chose Him as He has chosen us.

    So can you to a certain extent, but this doesn't negate free will. When you courted your wife, what did you have to do to get her to say yes? Did any of those things negate the fact that she had to say yes before you could marry her? Did any of those things remove her free will? If she had said "no", would you have forced her? You may have redoubled your efforts, but you couldn't remove her free will. If in the end she had finally had enough and made it clear that you weren't to come around any more you would have had to let her go.

    God has one thing you don't have: the ability to negate freewill. To ignore it. To force puny humans to beleve. But He choses not to do so.

    Let's go back to my example. If in the end your wife had said no, but you carried her off to anther country and forced her to marry you (as was done in ages past) would your marriage be complete and fulfilling? Would you insist on God having a marriage to people who believed out of something other than their own freely chosen decision? Because eventually, if a person doens't believe freely, if they've been somehow manipulated into believing, then eventually they will figure out that belief in God wasn't what they really wanted and they will be incomplete and unfulfilled as a woman forced into marriage. God wants servants, not slaves!

    Read carefully, 500 said that for whatever reason they didn't need or want their bill paid. So what happened? The bill remained unpaid! Their bill is still out there waiting at the debt collector who is harrassing them day and night (hell, where the worm never dies) because they can't pay their bill on their own and they refused payment on their behalf!

    (yes, there was supposed to be humor in that response)

    God own the cattle on a thousand hills, what does He need with economy? I know I sound sarcastic, but I'm serious. Where does the idea come from that Christ's blood must be going to waste simply because its not being applied? That would mean there was a limit to what Christ could accomplish! A limit? A limitless God, can't be limited!

    God is doing what God has always done: setting before man a choice he must make.

    :thumbsup: Good discussion GL! I appreciate how debating you always pushes me to consider and reconsider what I believe. :)
     
  13. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    i dare you to tell the Apostle Paul all that stuff above about 10 minutes after his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road.

    I'll check back in when I next visit the board.
     
  14. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    a page out of quantum's book...

    :thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
  15. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Yes...we agree on this......When I go past 70ad. I believe God is dealing with Jesus as The True Israel now...jew and gentile..one new man in Christ now.:thumbs:

    however.....I really think you error here...because you do not realize the chapter is addressed to the elect saints;
    You reasoning here is wrong in many ways, but I am glad we could agree on the other verses.
     
    #95 Iconoclast, Mar 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2011
  16. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Passover is merely one aspect of Christ's one offering. The burnt offering another, the meat offering another, the peace offering another, and the sin and trespass offerings still others.

    All of these are contained in Christ's one offering.

    In ignorance of the law of the offerings, and quite contrary to their doctrines, you attempted to assert that Christ's offering only covered one's sin, not his guilt. And, in despite to the Spirit of grace, you asserted that man must bring something of his own (see post 20) in addition to Christ's work on the cross to fully appease His wrath. You said that a man must bring his natural faith to appease God's wrath against him personally.

    Now I've presented the Scriptures to show you the error in your dichotomy of the work of atonement, and those you must deal with. If you choose to merely bail in your signature scoffing fashion, I have but one word for you:

    Troll.
     
  17. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which part do you think Paul would disagree with, GL?

    Were Saul's sins forgiven before the Damascus Rd? Did he not suffer from the sin of unbelief before this point? Did he have a choice to not believe? Were there not clear consequences for Saul if he didn't change his course? (as suggested by the phrase "kick against the pricks") Did Christ leave anything unclear about the choice Saul had to make, or did he have the same choice the people in Deuteronomy had: blessing or cursing?

    No, I understand that Peter was talking to those who were saved, but in this verse he was speaking about those who were yet unsaved.
     
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, provisionally so, as my rebuttal and illustration fully explain. Your argument leaves out the "provisional" aspect because it doesn't serve your purpose in creating a false dichotomy.
     
    #98 Skandelon, Mar 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2011
  19. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I believe the point Webdog was making is that faith was required when the angel of death passed over Egypt. It was not enough to simply kill the passover lamb and pour out it's blood (a figure of Christ who poured out his blood), the Israelites had to believe God's promise to pass over them if they applied the blood to their door. If they had killed the lamb, poured out it's blood, but failed to apply the blood to their door, then the firstborn in that house would have died. This is faith, it is believeing God's promise. He promised to pass over them if they remained inside (in Christ) and applied the blood to their door. Those who did not believe God's word and follow his instructions would have their firstborn perish.
    So, the blood was sufficient to save all, but only saves those who believe.
     
  20. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don't try to bail him out. He said plainly that Christ's death does NOT appease God's wrath against the sinner.

    You're saying something completely different. You're saying it does, but a man has to add something to make it effectual.

    (Edit: And you're wrong concerning the Passover. Any house with the blood on the lintel and door posts was passed over, and anyone in that house, believing or not, was spared. That most of them were unbelievers we know by their response to the report of the spies.)
     
    #100 Aaron, Mar 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...