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!

Arminian God cruel and arbitrary

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Paul33, Oct 26, 2004.

  1. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gene, Who said this in John 5:40? You err because you do not know the Word of God. This Person's words were: 'And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.' Are we to blame God or man? Take an hour and you should figure this one out. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]Man does not come to God because he lacks the moral ability to do so. This does not absolve man of responsibility, Ray, because he chooses freely and voluntarily.

    The only way God would responsible would be if He did a corresponding positive act of reprobation. We do not teach that (well, the hyperCalvinists do), because God would be creating fresh evil in a man's heart.

    This verse only highlights man's inability. Thank you for posting it.


    Notice 5:21. The Son gives life to whom He wishes, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life. Thus, they do not come to Jesus because they are dead. They must be raised to life in order to come to Jesus so that they may have life. As I posted above, When Jesus said, "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by my Father, this is a universal negative proposition. This is a plain statement of universal inability. "Can" does not indicate permission, it indicates ability or power. To say no one can do this is to say, no one is able to do it.

    Likewise, constructions like "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes”,” choose life" are clearly in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. It is therefore a false leap of logic to say that such statements show that natural ability assume moral ability. On the contrary, that is simply circular logic, because the only way the conclusion is true is if the premise is argued. It's a non-sequitar. In other words, "Natural ability assumes moral ability. The statements in Scripture prove it." God can not, by nature, use illogical reasoning. Arminianism must rely on such fallacies in order to prove it's objections to the Reformed tradition. Ultimately truth is logical. God is Truth. Thus God is logical. God requires faith of us, thus our faith must also be logical. If it is true that natural ability presumes moral ability, then it why does God issue commandments that He knows we can not possibly fulfill? It would make more sense for God to be accomodating to man. Note, this is exactly what liberal scholars teach, and, irony of ironies, theologically liberal scholars embrace some form of Arminianism without exception.
     
  2. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblical truth, expressed through Arminian theology, is not 'non-sequitar or circular reasoning. God has given sinners and saints the power to reason and the will to make moral decisions. Receiving Jesus is a moral choice as stated in John 3:16. Christians speak of this a being created at birth 'in the image of the Lord God. Read Genesis the first few chapters and John chapter one and James chapter three. We did Fall in Adam but we are not empty headed robots like the Calvinists pretend that we are while here on planet earth.

    Almighty God is calling to all sinners [Revelation 22:17] and they are to respond to the witness and preaching of the Gospel. But, Jesus did say that not everyone would respond to Jesus' call. [John 5:40 & II Peter 3:9]

    Berrian, Th.D.
     
  3. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray, if the Arminian view is correct, justification is necessarily syngergistic. Your system does denies mongerism.

    If that is true, you end up with:

    You can say that man is in a state of passive actuality with respect to his salvation. He's not completely dead and he has a natural ability. This makes salvation syngergistic. He can respond and he does respond, and he is regenerate. "Regeneration by/through faith." Scripture calls us "new creations" (indicative). Now, if we are new creations and we are participating with God somehow in our justification, since we add faith to the atonement and the Spirit'S "wooing" as Ray calls it, then we have have an active actuality actualizing partt of this creative process. That's TWO SEPARATE ACTUALITIES. 1 + 1 = 2. This is dualism.

    The other alternative is to say we are potentialities, which requires we are truly dead in sin (a premise you seek to deny, but at least moderate Calvinists do embrace it). Now, we have a case of a potentiality actualizing with respect to faith, because the view requires syngergy, the actualization of faith to add to the atonement (if potential) or to appropriate the atonement (if the atonement is considered actual) plus the "wooing of the Spirit." This means that a potential is actualizing itself in the new creation, and that results in an impossible self-causation, because a potential is actualizing itself, in other words it is existing and not existing at the same time.

    In both views, God is reacting as well. This has God acting contingently. That violates the principle of a Being of Pure Actuality with no potentiality in Him, because it would be contrary to such a Being's nature to act contingently to anything with respect to an ex nihilio act! You might say that God does this voluntarily, but that would still require God having a capacity for contingency, and that still violates the qualties of a purely actual Being, but let's assume that much can be possible. This isn't what the view of unconditional election teaches.
    That means that God has contingently in Him, because contingency = dependence. This is a cornerstone of Open Theism.
    Arminianism, particularly with the doctrine of election grounded in man's innate ability to believe, has God acting contingently. This can not be, because it would contradict the nature of God. Arminianism must necessarily rely on such falsehoods as potentials giving rise to actualities and self-causation. These are logical fallacies that theism as a whole rejects. Arminianism can not be true, because at one or more points at least one of these fallacies must be embraced. For example, if election is based on faith in man and man is dead in sin as Scripture says, then a potential is actualizing itself, falling into the impossibility of self-causation. Arminianism thus says man is not truly dead, he is merely mortally wounded. However, this is not in Scripture. Arminians try to modify this and many will say that man is dead in sin but he still has the moral ability, because natural ability presumes moral inability. However, that's a non-sequitar and circular.

    The ONLY way that you can say that is to argue the premise, Ray. That is circular reasoning. The notion that natural ability assumes moral ability is purely philosophical. Natural ability assuming moral ability is a conclusion that does not logical follow from the premise. Thus it is a non-sequitar. When argued, it always comes out in a circular construct. Furthermore, it usually employs the fallacy of limited alternatives.

    Choosing Christ is a good thing. If nothing good dwells in us, then we can not do truly good things.

    Calvinists agree: the will is free. The MIND is not free. It is a slave to its desires. Since none of them are good, how can it choose Christ on its own?

    It can not.


    Moral inability does not mean the will in unable to choose at all. It means the ability to will "any good accompanying salvation has been lost."

    Like I said, God lacks the moral ability to sin. It is contrary to his nature. Man lacks the moral ability to do any good accompanying salvation. He can not will his own salvation, because it is against his nature.

    If you believe the above about God, it is inconsistent to apply a different idea to your anthropology of man.

    At least I know what the Arminian view teaches, Ray. You present little more than a caricature.
     
  4. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer to the problems I sited in regard to God being unfair, partial, and unloving?

    In the Arminian scheme, how do you answer the very real problem that billions of souls will never hear the gospel message? Faith cometh by hearing! If I never have a chance to hear the Word of God preached, I'm lost! That's not fair!

    What's the answer?
     
  5. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gene,

    Your post was fine until you dropped in these words.
    You speak about synergism as being a word out of the mouth of the antichrist. Synergism mean there is 'an interaction of discrete agencies in such a way that the total effect is greater than the sum of the one effect.' God calls to eternal life and touched by the call the sinner answers the call via belief. This synergism happens in John 3:16.

    Dualism usually has the connotation of two elements which are opposites that run along in one system. We are not opposites with God; we are born 'in the image of God Himself,' hardly opposites in this frame of thought. Dualism is the theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes. I am using these two terms to say that this is more of a philosophical explanation of the interaction of God and the sinner and having faith in the true God. Dualism and synergism are good words and show that a lost man or woman must react and interact with God Himself.

    Monergism is a fine word too but this would leave God up in Heaven all by Himself, God who has no influence on His lost creation, meaning lost sinners.
     
  6. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT Guest

    Hi Gene;
    Unless;
    1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

    The whole world is all inclusive. No Man can come to Christ unless drawn;
    ("Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.")

    but on the same hand;

    Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    No man can unless drawn true. But all men are drawn.
    Spiritual ability is what I've been talking about. Not natural ability. Again you are not comprehending what you read. I'm sure your able to, but are reluctant to, because you might just see the truth.
    Better than you think.
    You are so concerned about the nature of God and yet fail to realize that God is Love.Why is that?
    Actually this seems to be most true with in you because again of your lack of knowledge of who and what God is. Is God Love?
    You again fail to show scripture to back up you theories but instead try to influence me with nonsense and accusations of my faith.

    Since we completely disagree on just about everything we have discussed so far I see little benifit of continuing this discussion with you. Discusing scripture for me is about learning and well for me you have nothing I would like to learn that you can prove. Thus far all you've shown is your opinion which doesn't account for much.
    May God Bless You With Light;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  7. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray: "This synergism happens in John 3:16."

    Where, Ray? Whosoever will? Hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but that's a TERRIBLY bad grammatical error on your part. First, there's a participle there indicating "believing ones," that's it. Subjunctive mood, Ray. That does NOT teach synergism, Ray.

    Some might further argue that passages which command or invite belief prove that man has the ability to believe while in the flesh. But all of these commands such as "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes", "choose life" are in the subjunctive mood. A conditional statement asserts nothing indicatively.

    Mike,

    I still fail to see why "God Is Love" is relevant. What are you trying to convey? I asked you to start a thread on it, but you have yet to do so.

    I and others have repetitively explained our stance on each of the Scriptures you have presented here. I repeat once more, they do nothing to bolster your position.

    I am well aware you mean spiritual ability...however, you base that assertion on what? Inferences that assume that natural ability assumes spiritual ability.

    Scripture says God is Love. It ALSO says that God is Spirit and God is Light. Reformed theology believes and teaches these. God is Love does not trump God is Spirit and God is Light. I will ask you again to please explain how God being defined as love is relevant to this issue. I'm interested in pursuing this, and I've asked you to start a thread on it.

    Ray,

    On dualism. you are correct in your definition. Dualism IS rejected by orthodoxy. Logically, however, Arminianism does belief that the ultimate decision regarding salvation lies not in God but in man. Correct? Well, what you have then is the old nature giving rise to faith and then effecting regeneration along with some sort of prevenient grace.

    Ok...

    Now, think about, it Ray. The old nature is doing something to assist in regeneration. That's exactly what you believe.

    Now, it is axiomatic that self-actualization is IMPOSSIBLE, Ray. NO POTENTIAL CAN GIVE RISE TO AN ACTUALITY ON ITS OWN. If they do, then you violate the law of noncontradiction, because something must both exist and not exist simultaneously.

    Thus, in order for you to be correct, the old nature is in a state of actuality, not potentiality. One state of actuality gives rise to a corresponding state of actuality. That is TWO ACTUALITIES RAY...the old nature and the new nature right alongside each other. This IS very clearly dualism. However, Scripture does not teach that. We are entirely new creations, we are of ONE nature, with two minds. This view of one nature, two operative principles, in one person was historic evangelical doctrine, until very recently.

    You are aware, I hope that a great many dispensationalists teach that in regeneration the old nature itself is not affected. The new nature is created ex nihilio ALONGSIDE the old nature. This teaching is that the "old" fallen nature remains untouched and unchanged. The Spirit regenerates and indwells the person (his body) but the Spirit does not indwell the old nature. The regenerate person is made a partaker of the divine nature but this divine nature is not his nature. The new nature is implanted in the soul, the person's single nature itself (what this view calls the old nature) is not itself recreated, eg. made a new creation.

    This results in two distinct natures in the Christian. Nothing actually happens to the old nature except that it has an entirely different new nature placed along side it-this is a real dualism. This IS dualism just as you have defined it here, Ray.

    Let's suppose for a moment that your Arminian view of the new birth, namely regeneration through faith is correct Biblically. If that is so, then logic should support it, because God can not by nature do something illogical.


    Is regeneration by faith logical? The answer must be no, because you run into one or more contradictions or self-defeating processes.


    When we are talking about this issue, we are talking about becoming a new creation or a new birth. We know that there is a voluntary decision of some sort involved. On this we all agree. We will call this X.

    Now, the desire and sequent decision to receive salvation must be either a. caused , b. uncaused, or c. self-caused. If it was uncaused, then it would simply exist the same way God exists. Uncaused things, however, strictly fall into the category reserved for the Ground of All Being, God Himself, because God is uncaused. We are caused to exist by God as a matter of creation. There was a time when we did not exist. Thus, this desire and subsequent decision has not always existed, simply because we have not always existed.

    It may be self-caused. This view is true only if total depravity is also true, because the definition of self-causation is that a potentiality is actualizing itself. If that is so, then we have a problem, because then it is a self-created effect which is impossible. For, in order for something to create itself, it must exist prior to itself which violates the law of non-contradiction (since it would have to be and not be at the same time, in the same sense).

    We are left with option a. This desire is caused.

    Now, we have three options for causation:

    a. intrinsic (from inside the individual)-intrinsic monergism
    b. a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic causes (from both inside and outside the individual)-synergism
    c. extrinsic (from outside the individual)-extrinsic monergism

    If the ultimate cause for X is intrinsic, then it is accomplished through one or more of

    the following constitutive human faculties:

    a. body (somatic causation),
    b. mind (cognitive causation), or
    c. spirit (pneumatic causation)

    We must rule out a. body because somatic processes do not give rise to rational processes, thinking, and Scripture clearly rejects in John 1 any reference to the flesh with respect to the new birth.

    It might be b. mind. . "Resistless logic, however, renders such a scenario absurd, indeed unbiblical, by making salvation contingent upon one's inherent intellectual acumen." Biblically, salvation extends to the full range of human beings without respect to genetic content, congenital factors, or level of education. Christianity is not a faith for scholars only. Rather, Christ says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden" (Mat 11:28). If this option is true however, we are saying that the believer that believes has a superior mind and is intellectually superior to the unbeliever. Intellect becomes a meritorious thing.

    Murray writes of the third option : "From a Biblical viewpoint, the third option, namely, that X is ultimately caused by something in the person's spirit, or pneumatically, is equally as absurd as the second option. For, in this case, the inherently possessed spirit of the one that chooses X could be said to be superior, indeed more righteous, than the one that rejects salvation. Salvation is, of course, a most glorious and holy event. Thus, we would be forced to declare that those persons who incline themselves toward salvation, thereby acting as its final, inauguratory cause, possess a spirit that is intrinsically more righteous than the spirit possessed by those who reject salvation. Such an idea is perhaps even more preposterous than the previous one in light of what the Bible teaches us that the universal state of man's fallen spiritual condition in total separation from God (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom 3:23; 5:12; 6:20; Mk 7:21-23; Jer 17:9). Moreover, the spirit, its faculties, and capabilities are all endowed to humans by their Creator, and that with complete ontological equality (Gal 3:28; Acts 10:34)."

    Additionally, Arminians all REJECT monergism completely, so we can rule out option A. Intrinisc monergism altogether with their permission. Arminians also rule out the third option, extrinsic monergism, as, in order for it to be true, the Reformed position must be

    true.

    We are thus left with only one viable option. B. Synergism. Is it logical? The answer is NO.

    Again, Murray: "we are concerned here with the simple causation of X, and thus, sufficient causal agency as opposed to becoming lost in a panoply of necessary conditions (NCs). If variables A, B, and C, are necessary causal factors, then each are necessary but not sufficient to bring about X, i.e., the desire and resultant decision to receive Christ in faith. And if they are not sufficient, then they are not ultimate. Only the final, decisive factor, D, can be counted as the ultimate cause of X. For it is not until this final factor comes to exert its force that the effect in question is actualized." In short, the ground of X in syngergism is man's faith, not God's grace, no amount of "wooing," as many Arminians say is the final deciding factor.

    Synergism, then, only backs up a step the original issue of how one ultimately arrives at X. The synergist argues that God, through prevenient grace, supplies the necessary conditions which form the backdrop for a Christly decision to be made, but that the final-and therefore sufficient-factor is left up to individual. God's grace is a necessary but not sufficient condition for one's salvation. God may graciously provide all manner of necessary conditions but the ultimate outcome hangs precariously in the anthropocentric balance of human decision.

    If it is true, you MUST end up with dualism, because it is axiomatic that caused actualities only become potentialities (e.g. cease to exist) or are actualize other potentialities other than themselves; or you end up with an impossible self-actualization (see above on self-causation). Dualism must be rejected, because X applies only to the self and not the creation of a self in addition to the one already in existence.

    You have to come back to some form of monergism in order for syngerism to work without ending up with the heresy of dualism. For, during this period of illumination, to what do we owe the decision to choose salvation in those who manifest it? Is the locus of their decision to be found in the body, mind, or spirit? Which of these faculties compels them over their neighbor (who receives the same illumination) to make the right decision?

    Intrinsic monergism is a premise that is illogical and, additionally, all monergistic forms are rejected by Arminians. Biblically, then, your view of X is always illogical. God is many things, but ILLOGICAL is not one of them, sir.

    The only way around this is to posit extrinsic monergism, which says regeneration precedes faith. Only the Reformed position works both Biblically and logically.
     
  8. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    Good pitching; three strikes and they're out!
     
  9. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Man's Inability to choose wisely--

    Is not a matter of "emptiness of the head", but rather a "wickedness of the heart" which only The Holy Spirit can turn around, that keeps man from making a "decision to seek God".

    Depraved man has not the ability nor the inclination to seek God without the Spirit of God doing the enabling. Hence the Grace of God.

    God's children have been saved the same way ever since Adam and Eve.

    See: Eph. 2:8-10
    The faith to believe is a gift from God.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  10. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother James,

    Grace is the gift of God; faith in a sinner's response toward the calling of God to everlasting life. [Ephesians 2:8-9] Hebrews chapter eleven repeatedly tells us of the faith of the saints. 'By faith Abraham . . . ' God would not say in Hebrews 11:6 that 'without faith it is impossible to please Him' if the Lord autocratically dropped faith in our heads and hearts by His election. We are to believe and have faith in Christ, and during this lifetime we become one of His elect ones. And yet Almighty God has always known that we would receive His Son. [I John 5:13]

    He or she who has the Son has life. [I John 5:12a] God gives grace and eternal life. [I John 5:11] Believing and receiving Christ is the sinner's responsibility as the Spirit aids them.

    Brother Berrian
     
  11. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 12:3 says that God has alloted to each a measure of faith. Faith is a gift from God. Now, before you go and say that this proves that this means that God has given everybody the ability to have saving faith, I would point out that Paul here is addressing Christians. I says "to everyone among you" talks about thinking more highly of themselves, and so forth. This is just talking about the everyday faith that Christians have in God in terms of how they live, use their gifts, carry on ministry and so forth. That's all.

    The point I'm making is that faith is a gift from God.

    Now, Ephesians 2:8-9. – "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    In Greek, what is the antecedent of "that" and what is the subject of the sentence? The cause of saving faith is grace. Grace is a gift from God. It engenders saving faith, which is also a gift from God, because it is engendered by grace. Faith leads to justification, thus justification is by faith. Faith comes to us via grace. It has no real origin in ourselves.

    Ah, but you say, the antecedent of "that" is grace, not faith, because "that" is a neuter pronoun...and, you are quite correct! (Bet you didn't think I'd agree with you did you).

    Ok, but the subject of the entire sentence is what? You? Yes, but it follows FOR, linking it directly to a sentence about God in v.4. V.8 is part of a thought beginning in v.4. Grace is the gift, true, but there is very clearly no salvation without grace, and there is not salvation without faith. Salvation and grace are both gifts of God, and since there is no salvation apart from faith, we know there would be no faith apart from God, because the grace comes from Him not us, and the linguistic construction is such that there is no faith apart from grace, which comes from God alone.

    This verse, instead of supporting your view, flatly denies it. I've seen multiple attempts that will say salvation is God's gift; grace is God's gift, and everybody tries to talk about the gift, so they all say "aha" the gift is grace. Yup, they're right, but the subject of the sentence isn't grace and it isn't really man, and it isn't faith, the subject is God way up in v.4, and the construction is such that there is no saving faith in us without God who gives the gift of grace, so that still makes saving faith the gift of God, because it flows from grace, because if it comes from us then it gives us something about which we can boast, because it is not from God Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. Salvation is not of us at all. It is by grace. It comes to us via faith. Faith is therefore, the gift of God as well. The entirety of salvation (grace and faith) is a gift of God, and not the result of anything man may do.
     
  12. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The crux of the argument: is not in grammatical constructs of the Koine.

    The key to understanding this is in the plain doctrine of the "total depravity of man".

    "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked--who can know it?"

    Man, of himself, has nothing remotely related to good. His nature allows him to choose only that which is evil--man is born that way--it is in his genes. There are none righteous, not one.

    This is where the grace of God comes in--He convicts man of sin, righteousness and judgement to come--through the preaching of the Gospel.

    The faith to believe (trust) is a gift of God, not of works--so we cannot boast. Exercising "our" faith would be a work of which we are incapable.

    "God gives the faith" also gives all the glory to God--where it belongs.

    To God be the glory--great things He has done.

    Woe to them who preach any other Gospel.
     
  13. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray said:

    "We are to believe and have faith in Christ, and during this lifetime we become one of His elect ones. And yet Almighty God has always known that we would receive His Son. [I John 5:13]"


    So God has always known who was going to receive His Son based on belief and faith.

    God also knows that millions will never hear the gospel message so that they can believe in faith. What happens to them? Apparently God doesn't care that millions will never have a chance to accept the gospel. How cruel and arbitrary.

    Also, if God knows beforehand who is going to accept the gospel, he also knows beforehand who isn't. And yet this loving God knowingly created these people anyway - people he knew would go to hell.

    Not very loving, is it Ray.

    Perhaps the only solution is "open theism" where God doesn't know any more about the future than we do.
     
  14. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the Arminian view stops at the ground of election being grounded in foreseen belief or unbelief, it is actually no less fatalistic than the opposing view, because foreseen belief or unbelief is already a fixed event anyway in that scenario, or else the argument doesn't make sense. Open Theism is just a more honest type of Arminianism, at least it is consistent.
     
  15. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gene M. Bridges,

    The only Arminian view is that God knows everything and that Jesus never has 'pushed the envelope' in manipulating any sinner into a Kingdom that he never wanted.

    Under the canopy of the sovereignty of God He has allowed human sinners to determine their eternal destiny, with the equal wooing of the Spirit of God; these are choices that Almighty God has already and always has known.

    The foreknowledge of God remains and always has been His Divine plan. [I Peter 1:2a] Our Biblical position is "Election By Faith."

    Calvinism's election is "Unconditional Election", one in which there is no apparent reason, known to humans, why He saves some and damns the majority.
     
  16. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    'In fact, Calvin himself declared that it is to God's glory that He fills hell with those whom He could save. This horrible doctrine also, Calvin admits, comes from Augustine:
    'There is nothing inconsistent with this when we say, that God, according to the good pleasure of His will . . . . elects those whom He chooses for sons, while He rejects and reprobates others. For fuller satisfaction . . . . see Augustine Epist. 115, et ad Bonif., Lib. ll, cap. 7 . . . . The Lord therefore may show favour to whom He will, because He is merciful; not show it to all, because He is a just judge. 23

    (John Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion" op. cit., III:ssiii, 10-11). I believe this is a quote from the Institutes though I am not sure. For text with this documentation turn to the book, "What Love Is This?" by Dave Hunt, p. 114. I found not one sentence of error in Mr. Hunts book. A subtitle says, "Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God." As to his explanations in this corrective book, 'to God be the glory.'

    Which system is Cruel and Arbitrary? This is a retorical question.
     
  17. Paul33

    Paul33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray said:

    "Under the canopy of the sovereignty of God He has allowed human sinners to determine their eternal destiny, with the equal wooing of the Spirit of God; these are choices that Almighty God has already and always has known."

    Apparently not, Ray.

    He has allowed "some" to determine their eternal destiny. Those who never hear a presentation of the Gospel don't get the same chance!

    Since God knows that some will never hear a presentation of the Gospel, not only is God arbitrary, he is unloving and unfair.
     
  18. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, but the text in Ephesians 2 says election is by grace, not faith, and it says that grace is from God. Justification, Ray, is by faith,not election, and grammatically the entire clause before touto is the antecedent, which means faith as well as grace are the gifts of God. not coming intrinsically from man. This is basic Greek exegesis, Ray .

    Romans 8:29 says that those whom He (God) foreknew, He also predestined...v30, these whom He predestined, He also called, and these whom He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also glorified. The word "called" is interpreted, even by Arminians, as meaning "chose." So, using your logic, since not all have faith and since election is based on faith, Ray, you can insert "some" in front of "these" and you end up with a God who only foreknows some, predestines some, calls some, justifies only some of those He calls, and, who only glorifies some of those whom He justifies. Logically, Ray, you must reject eternal security, which I know you do not reject.
    :confused:


    You continue to accuse God of being arbitrary. To be arbitrary, something must have no fixed rules, it must be random. How many times do I have to post that here before you understand it?
    The text says that God predestines according to His own will and that it is purposeful. What, Ray, is less arbitrary than God? You are saying that you think that God is more arbitrary than man, Ray.

    Tell us, Ray, what faith is it that God sees that is meritorious. If election is conditional, what was it God saw in Abraham, the pig eating pagan when God elected him? Was it Jacob's honesty with Isaac? Nope, couldn't be. If election is conditioned on faith, you have God electing contingently on something we do in time, yet Scripture speaks repeatedly of God doing this thing called election in His mind before the foundation of the world. If it is conditional on faith as you say, Ray, then how did He chose Jacob over Esau before they were even born and had ever done anything good or evil? No, Ray, election happens in the mind of God, not dependent on anything man Himself does, and if you say it does, you have just limited God severely, by saying that He is dependent on something other than Himself in order for His will to come to pass, which conflicts with the nature of God who, by nature can not do such an act, because there is no contingency in God.
     
  19. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've known for quite some time you've been quoting from Hunt. That's Hunt, that likes to quote Peter "advanced revelation" Ruckman and Gail Riplinger, the KJVOists. Hunt that completely misrepresents Spurgeon's view of the atonement. Hunt that never offers any meaningful exegesis of his own. Hunt that uses circular arguments. Hunt that has twice said he would debate White on these issues and has yet to keep his word. Hunt that devotes too much time to John 6 and never offers any exegesis of his own. You find NO ERRORS, in his book? Good grief, Ray! The man says Spurgeon believed in unlimited atonement. Anybody that says that is getting very basic information wrong. This is the man you say has no errors in his work?

    For a rather lengthy list of his errors, look here:

    http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html
     
  20. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's be intellectually honest here. The open letter you referred to was written/updated in 2002. I hold in my hands right now a book published in 2004, written by Dave Hunt and James White, called "Debating Calvinism". Your attacks against Dave Hunt are doing the same thing you say he does.

    Bro Tony
     
Loading...