Your example is the primary way that people are introduced into false-gospel cults -- not how they become the adopted sons of God.
You have described a totally human-centered means of salvation. Find God and decide to join God. No where do you mention the fact that we: 1) cannot find God, 2) are not searching for God, 3) cannot come to God based in our own efforts, 4) must realize (through God's grace and effectual calling) that God alone is the author and finisher of our faith.
IF Once Were Arminist, What verse(s) Forced You To calvinism?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, May 11, 2011.
Page 7 of 11
-
-
Not from what I've seen...
We should note that Erickson turns to Ephesians and Romans BECAUSE those passages expressly deal with the very subject matter you disavow. Ironically, while Erickson exegetes Scripture in the making of his case, you do not, but that does not stop you from making invalid assumptions about his work, including your own idea that he is not accessing Scripture for his answers. Perhaps you are projecting your own issues onto Erickson? I do not see you exegeting Scripture for your remarks... :rolleyes: -
Election IS a biblical concept, as both Arms and cals affirm it, just diferring on WHAT is actually said by that...
BOTH say God is all knowing, all powerful, able to do as he pleases etc...
Arms tend to say that God has chosen to "allow" man to place his faith in jeus, as he gives "general" grace to all from the Cross, so its our fault if we go to Heaven/Hell
Cals see it as being we are SO messed up as a result of the Fall, that we are in sin, with actual sin natures , which would prevent us from excerxising faith in Christ, so God directly intervenes to allow his elected out ones to be able to turn and become saved by Christ... -
You are openly suggesting that man and man's efforts play a pivotal role in the salvific endeavor. Your starting point is biblical -- in that we need salvation, and again in the fact that man is rebellious and desiring to come to God on his or her own terms -- but not in the sense that accurately handles the need for God's involvement at every step in the process of salvation. Without God's first intervention or action (prevenient grace in the Arminian camp) man can do NOTHING -- not even know that there IS a God. You fail to be true to your own stated Arminian tenets, which everywhere state that God MUST act first, not man. The second you invoke man's actions as a first issue, you indeed drift into an extra-biblical Pelagian direction.
So, while I well understand, and argue often, about the limits we place on the logic used to formulate doctrines of soteriology, you (but not I) have already transgressed those limits. I am merely pointing out that you have. -
The question is, as always, who is the one DOING the saving and who is the one being saved? -
I have NO idea who will be of the elect, but know that God calls us to preach/teach about Christ, as those who respond by faith will prove their election to be sure...
Aren't there 2 major reasons why Arms/cals see this issue differently?
One is that Cals tend to see the effects of the fall as being worse to us, that we were literally caused to be born spiritual dead/blind, due to original sin/depravity etc?
While arms to see it more as being "marred" some do not take the part of original sin, have us being depraived but to lesser extent?
other area is in how we viewactually theory on atonement..
cals tend to see it as being a penal substitionary atonement, for individual/specific sins, while Arms tend to see it more as a 'corporate/group" election, as more "moral influence/Govt theory?" -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Here is what I'd like to know about Arminians.
Are you always running around telling people that you must accept Christ 1st before He can accept you? My own personal experience tells me thats true but I'd like to hear a clearly developed answer.
Also, do you believe in a persons loosing their Salvation? I've been told, again 1st hand, that I lost my salvation thru my actions....It was used as a weapon against me personally & so do you have that in your Arminian theology? -
The DIFFERENCE is that you believe faith is efficaciously caused by a inward work of regeneration, while I believe it is enabled by God's gracious means of the Gospel's power, but it can be resisted. Either way, man must have faith to be saved, Aaron, and if you insist that faith is a "work" then you too must affirm that man is saved by grace through works.
Mark 16:16:
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
James 4:10
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up
etc etc etc -
Calvinistic:
God chose to effectually regenerate you and not the others, so you were irresistibly caused to want to believe and were saved. Thus, the others didn't believe because God condemned them in Adam making them completely unable to willingly accept the appeal to be reconciled. They perish because God didn't give them the ability to willingly accept the truth.
Non-Calvinistic:
God chose to graciously call all mankind through the means of the powerful gospel appeal thus giving them what they needed to believe and be reconciled to God. So, those who believe give credit for God's gracious gift of the gospel and the cross, while those who resist are completely culpable for their rejection. "They perish because they reject the truth." -
I am saved by the blood of Christ, his atoning work on the cross. He saved me. I can truly say that I am saved; that my sins are forgiven, that I am on my way to heaven, and it is all because of him.
Notice the number of times I used the first person singular. You cannot give a testimony without using the word "I." A person who thinks he can probably isn't saved. Paul, in order to testify of Christ, had to use the first person singular. Go through his testimonies as he recounted his salvation testimonies to Festus and others and see how often he uses the first person singular. It is unavoidable. Of course Christ does the saving. He is not saving trees. He is saving ME. I am the one that is saved!! -
Yes, he could just internally flip a switch inside of his creatures making their wills change. But He just doesn't ever do that in scripture...He uses storms and big fish, He uses blinding lights and messengers, He uses nail scared hands, He uses envy, He uses signs and wonders, He uses persuasion, He uses teaching and preaching, He uses the church. He works IN an THROUGH these means to bring understanding so that all are without excuse. So, I affirm the need for so called "prevenient grace," I just refuse to separate that from the outward/normative means God has clearly appointed to work IN and THROUGH.
The difference is that in my view the means actually accomplish a purpose, whereas in your system they apparently are just for show. -
Read this passage from Acts 28: 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"
Notice the distinction between the Jew who had "grown calloused" (hardened) and those who haven't yet grown calloused. Look at the word "otherwise" and how it describes the ability of those who have yet to grow calloused. Also, notice how Paul doesn't view the Gentiles as being in the same boat, because they "will listen."
Being judicially hardened, as the Jews were at this time, means they are unable to see, hear or understand the truth of the gospel. They are being "cut off" from the revelation of the tree, as Paul explains in Romans 11. But, it is temporary and purposeful. They can still be saved (vs. 14). -
WHY did God do this? In order to be able to have we gentiles grafted into salvation that was of the Jewish people, their and our Messiah...
Hardness and blindness will continue, until ALL fulness of the gentiles is done, which will allow God to then redirect His efforts to removing their hard hearts, and giving them new herats when the Messiah returns...
At THAT time, indeed ALL Isreal alive will be saved! -
or you could say that God "cut them off." (ref. Romans 11)
What does that mean? He hid the gospel from them in parables (ref Mark 4; Matt 13 etc), he sent them a "spirit of stupor" (Rm 11), he blinded them from the truth (Jn 12:39-41).
Why? So they would crucify Christ and so as to allow room for the ingrafting of the Gentiles within the church (Rm 11). But this judicial hardening was temporary and not unto certain condemnation (see Romans 11:14 and following).
-
He still would be electing out of "national Isreal" His faithful remnant, but the rest of each generation would stay "blinded" until he dealings among gentiles was to cease?
And THAT time would be at the end of the Age, in "Last days?" -
Because of the bigotry of the Jews toward non-Jews, it is reasonable to suggest that had a great number of Jews come to faith first that they might not have allowed Gentiles to join their churches. Thus, God grafted them in.
I can't remember where I read this, but one scholar spoke about in farming the use of grafting in branches required a significant number of particular types of branches in order for them to take root and become established. He compared this to Paul's use of this analogy.
-
Of course this is a Dispy talking here, a Covenant Christian sees Spititual isreal as being the Church, so your idea makes more sense IF someone was of that system of belief! -
I understand. I just don't think there is enough info in Romans 11 to draw your conclusions regarding the hardening of Israel. There just seems to be a lot of speculations, but at least we DO know that their condition is not from birth, but something unique and temporary, thus proving the distinction between the concept of Total Depravity as being the reason that someone would be unable to see, hear, understand and repent.
-
-
Are you saying that if God (you know, GOD) desires something (including the salvation of an individual!) that a mere mortal human can stymie or otherwise cause His failure?
Page 7 of 11