Arminian God cruel and arbitrary

Hi Bro Tony;
I would agree that Hunt can get rather wordy. Most of what he said from "What love is this" I haven't found any problems with except for objections from the Calvinist themselves.

In order for a man to prove His point about scripture, he should IMHO be confined to scripture and not to his own logic or made up definitions. Myself I do my best to rely on the reasoning of God's Word. I have often have found things there that I admit, I wish weren't the way they were but who am I to question the authority of God. We are conformed to His image not Him conformed to ours.

The ancient Greek word;
proorizô to determine beforehand, to predetermine, pre-ordain, plan Entry in LSJ or Middle Liddell.
Is translated as "predestined' in English You will notice that the definition above in the Greek this word is not unalterable as Calvinist are quick to point out for the definition for "predestine" in English.
To assign such a meaning from English to an original word written in ancient Greek is improper to say the least. To say God never changes a plan well God doesn't change but His plans are not Him.
I believe we are all created for righteousness not for destruction. If man is destroyed it is man's fault, not God's.
I also believe that man is a free in that he is able to make decisions and does. How ever no man can come to God without being drawn but then God draws all men to him since He is lifted up.
I don't believe man goes to hell because of his sin but because of unbelief. Sin can be forgiven by Christ but if you die in your unbelief without repentance you will go to Hell.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Hi Mike,

Thanks for sharing, you have put it just the way I feel. I know that others do not agree, but such is the nature of the debate forum. I appreciate the way the Lord has used you to verbalize these things, I also appreciate that you like me refuse to take on a label by which we must look at Scripture. I believe we should let the Scripture speak for Itself, rather than confine it to a particular man-made theology.

God Bless

Bro Tony

 

I agree that Catholic doctrine in preaching is more like Arminian Protestants than back in Augustine's time. Just think, maybe some of us are actually listening to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, while other people merely repeat the doctrines of men like Calvin. The Catholics at least have taken one step forward and closer to what our Lord is saying in His Word. Centuries ago R.C.'s were clearly more Augustinian/Calvinistic.

I did not need to read Mr. Hunt's book, "What Love Is This", to form my theology. I have studied mega years in formal settings and throughout my life. I was just pleased to read a man who believes exactly as I do. I think Mr. Hunt is saying there is no love toward sinners, except the 'chosen frozen' in the mind of un-Biblical scholars. I John 2:2 shows the far reaching aspect of the Lord's love toward all sinners and not just toward those who become the elect.

In my past post I used two of the most prominent Greek scholars and yet you guys merely 'blow them off.' Do you ever listen to scholarship other than men and women who are scholars who believe as yourself?

Last Sunday I attended an Italian R.C. church because my father-in-law cannot drive. The priest preached the Gospel saying that anyone can come to Christ if they are willing to turn from the sins, (repentance) and believe in Jesus. He also had literature in the bulletin on selecting a pro-life candidate plus he preached about what a true family really is all about. One man and one woman in marriage as related to voting politically as the people of God. Of course, I would not agree with their other doctrines that do blur the true Gospel.

I find that Calvinists hate Mr. Hunt because he says things like they should be said as a teacher. There is no re-interpreting words to patch up Calvinism's gaping holes.

 

Since Hunt's book has (unfortunately) come up again, I want to remind everyone of the thorough exposure of Hunt's theology and methods in this review article. This article should be enough to forever put Hunt on the trash pile. It was a shameful attempt, riddled with misunderstanding, bad logic, and bad exegesis. It should not be taken seriously by anyone.

http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/5-4.htm

 

In my past post I used two of the most prominent Greek scholars and yet you guys merely 'blow them off.' Do you ever listen to scholarship other than men and women who are scholars who believe as yourself?

Ray, with all due respect, sometimes when you do quote Greek scholars, like A.T. Robertson, in support of your position, you are doing the same thing as Hunt does, because those same scholars hold positions contrary to your own (Robertson, in fact, is just such a scholar). Hunt does this frequently in the book from which you quote. That is why I keep telling you to go and look at the sources that this book, which you declare to be "without error," uses.


Time after time, Southern, in particular, will go to the lexical sources themselves and offer his own exegesis and not just what others that support him have said. Your exegesis is often circular, arguing the premise. I don't always agree exactly with Southern. For example, in the thread on 1 John 2:2, I stand by my own exegesis, which incorporates his own view, but I think that the key to understanding the verse lies in the overall occasion of the letter itself and not a particular view of the atonement. On the other hand, you seem to assume the atonement is unlimited and proceed from there. Mike assumes the atonement is potential and not at all actual (which differs from what you believe, somewhat, I think) and interprets the verse in line with his own preconceptions. As I pointed out to him, 1 John 5:18 and 19 offers the same linguistic references and if both of your interpretations of 2:2 are remotely correct, then both Christians and nonChristians are actually subjegated to the wicked one or the subjegation of us all is not actual at all and is potential, which contradicts what you believe about 2:2. Those are basic exegetical errors that you guys never address.

You claim consistently that our view of election is arbitrary, and time and time again, I point you to the dictionary definition of "arbitrary," which you yourselves say is correct and show you without even referencing koine Greek how meritless your objection is, yet you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over as if you never heard it. It's almost as if you say, "Yes, I know what the definition says and I know what you teach, but..." and then proceed as if you have never said anything.

How, using the defintion of the word arbitrary can God be arbitrary if, in fact, election is done with a purpose. To say that, you have believe that God uses random chance and is not using some kind of fixed ground in Himself. All we teach is that God does not anchor election in anything we do for Him; His reasons are in Himself. It is purposeful and, therefore, not random. This is what we teach. You say that is arbitrary and quote just part of the dictionary definition of the word to support your position. I mean, how many times can you repeat the same basic errors in our own language, not to mention the same rational errors? If you all would quit using straw men, quoting persons that hold views opposite to you as if they support you, and just get what we teach correct from the start, we could have a much more meaningful interaction, yet you do exactly what Hunt does and make the same kinds of meritless, mistaken, circular, rhetorical objections over and over. You, in particular, having a Th.M. should know better, Ray.

 

Hi Paul33;
Maybe you didn't read my post at the third from the top on page 6. You're question was for evanglicals and Arminians wasn't it?
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Paul 33,

I do not think that we want to blame Almighty God for not reaching sinners with the Gospel. We have His Word and it is our responsibility, right where we are, to share God's plan of salvation to everyone near us. I think you will agree with Jesus here in Mark 16:15. ' . . . every creature.' (person)

Are our military personel who are Christians sharing the truth of John 3:16 to people nearest them. My guess is that for the most part they do not speak of Jesus most wonderful grace. Do our American businessmen and women share the truth of Jesus? Those who do not verbally witness to the truth of Jesus will be held accountable when they stand before the Lord. There are other ways to witness to our faith than verbally, obviously. God can work wherever His message is preached. If every Christian would have witnessed to the faith, multiple millions of sinners would have been brought into the Kingdom. Let's not point our finger against God; we need to personally get involved in getting the message out.

I have a Scripture on a piece of paper that deals with those who have never heard. Another brother used it and already explained in perhaps months ago. I'll keep looking. I cannot think of a key word that would lead me to it.

Surely those who have never heard, will not be judged as severely as those who have repeatedly rejected Christ, time after time, after time under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. [Matthew 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47] Three out of four of the Gospels suggest that there will be various degrees of punishment for those who end up in Hell.

The Prophet Ezekiel 3:18-19 reminds us that if we are not actively witness about Jesus we will be in trouble at the Judgment Seat of Christ, a judgment that is only for the saints. The Apostle John in his first epistle reminds us that some Christians ' . . . will be ashamed to stand before the Lord at His coming for His people.' [2:28]

Do the 1% of Christians in most of the Muslim countries witness about Jesus amazing grace? Some probably do; many without doubt do not share Christ with Muslims because of an inner fear.

Our ministry is to witness to all sinners [Mark 16:15] not the alleged preselected elect ones, those favored ones. Remember: ' . . . every creature.'

 

Do you not understand that sin has nothing do to with salvation? Jesus Atoned for sin, paid the penalty so that all that man can do is believe or not believe. One does not need the written word of God to know there is a God and to have faith in God. God makes sure that every person knows He exists. It is then up to the person to believe and be saved through faith. The fact that someone doesn't believe is no excuse any more that "ignorance of the Law" is an excuse. Jesus when crucified went to the place where the dead are, and preached the Gospel to them, those who believed were saved. Do you not think God goes to where the unbeliever is alive in the natural realm and makes himself known to them?

Do you really think that God who made all is not concerned with each out of all?

 

No, you are not understanding me, you are speaking from an undefensible position. That of not knowing the whole truth. Keep reading.

Perhaps you haven't read Jeremiah.

The IS condition:

The promise of a new covenant and what it will be like. The WILL BE Condition: (and is now since Jesus)

Jesus came unto his own and his own received him NOT! So what did he do? He opened himself, and this "new covenent, up to all mankind through his apostles, at least two of whom were directed to the gentiles. Peter and Paul, but, it is known that others also went to the gentiles.

Please notice that God writes his laws on the heart and those who receive him become his. Yes, whosoever believeth on Him should not persish but have everlasting life.

Unbelief is not sin! It is a condition of spirit!
Likewise Belief is a condition of spirit!

 

No that is not the Arminian solution.

The Arminian solution is found in Romans 10 and in Romans 2.

There we find the witness of nature and there we find the work of the Holy Spirit on those with no Bible at all.

The God who "draws ALL mankind to Himself" does it effectively --

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not unless you're a universalist or you're somehow redefining what "effectively" means, Bob You do not believe in efficacous drawing, our you would be a Calvinist.

 

Already shown in the Calvinist future scenario posted on this thread.

Wrong - the only thing that is needed to show Calvinism describes God as "unjust" is to show that the Bible has God claiming that "HE is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" and then to observe that Calvinism claims that in fact "God does nothing" to back that all inclusive claim up.

When God says He provides in Christ "The Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT FOR our sins ONLY but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" Calvinism says - "oh no he does not!".

Calvinism DESCRIBES Him as unjust. (At least 4 and 5 pt Calvinism does).

The Calvinist future scenario posted here exposes the unjust view of God painted by 4 and 5 point Calvinists.

The Arminian future scenario subjects the doctrines of grace in the Arminian model to that SAME test and SHOWS how it described God as loving and Merciful.

This is obvious.

And the question about God "being able" to reach the lost who have not had access to scripture - was answered in the previous post.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not unless you're a universalist or you're somehow redefining what "effectively" means, Bob You do not believe in efficacous drawing, our you would be a Calvinist. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Calvinism is that which "redefines effective" not the Arminian position.

In John 1 Christ is said to be the light that coming into the world - enlightens EVERY MAN.

Calvinism argument would charge that this is not really efficient or effective SINCE the same chapter says "but men loved darkness rather than light".

In other Words - God giving man free will - is used by Calvinism to charge God with the blame for man's failures as "if" bad choices on our part makes God "ineffecient" or "ineffective".

Arminians would never take such a leap into the night. You have used a circular argument by inserting the Calvinist argument on "effective" and "effecient" into the Arminian position - AS IF Arminians ever accepted the Calvinist definition.

In Christ,

Bob