IF Once Were Arminist, What verse(s) Forced You To calvinism?

Those who clearly saw and understood God's eternal nature and divine qualities CHOSE to trade in those clearly revealed truth for a lie. In their natural state they believed God existed and even understood his divine nature and eternal qualities.

Even the demons believe.

Which will? He asked about God's desire. Does he desire you to sin? Yes or no? Does he will you to sin? Does He fail every time you do sin?

So, my answer can't be a simple yes or no, because he hasn't defined what he means by "desire." If he means "If God has chosen to effectually save someone can anyone thwart his will?" Then the answer is no. (which is what I said in my first response). If he means, "Does God desire (take pleasure in) the salvation of man?" Then the answer is yes. He desires all to repent and come to faith and thus be saved. It is not that difficult.

 

On the road to Damascus, right there and then, Saul submitted to Christ as Lord. No Jew would call Christ Lord. They had rejected him as their Messiah.

That doesn't mean that he was "forced" to. He still could have gone on in his rebellious way, and resisted Christ. Notice the questions asked:

Why do you persecute me?
Who art thou Lord?
I am Jesus whom you persecute. It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.
What will you have me to do?

Instead of saying "Who art thou Lord," he could have said, "because that is my religious duty, and not cared about Christ at all. God didn't force him. There is no such thing as irresistable grace. But God knew aforetime what decision he, of his own free will would make. He never forced him to make it.

 

Are you saying then that Paul could have evn resisted being called as an Apostle of Christ? if yes, than God would have left half of the new testament unwritten for us today!

Just asking why did paul changed his mind right at this time? Why not stay in darkness and sin? he already thought Jesus was a blasphemer, deserved death as a False messiah, what evidence do you have to support notion that it was NOT irresistable grace at this time?

or is it just that you do not think its a biblical concept/doctrine period as reason why?

 

Are you now saying that a man can believe and not be saved?

Ask Pharaoh.

Which being interpreted is, I don't really know.

 

Those spoken of in Romans 1 who traded the truth for lie did.

He's dead

Read John Piper's explanation of the "two wills of God" and come back ready to have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

Here is a summary statement for those who may be too lazy to read the whole article:

"as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent" -Piper

There is a difference in God's sovereign unchanging will and what he "delights" in. The fact you can't or refuse to acknowledge that is more a reflection of the fact that you are the one who "does not know."

 

Paul was not called an apostle until long after he was saved. Positions are earned, not given. He had to earn the respect of the believers, and even of the other apostles. I believe it was Barnabas that took him to the other Apostles and told them not to be afraid, for already he had been preaching Christ and convincing many (but the Apostles were unaware of this).

It was the Lord's timing. He has a purpose in all things. I do not deny the sovereignty of God. Neither do I deny the free will of man. Within that great umbrella of sovereignty God gives man a measure of free will to choose or reject Christ.

Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost where thousands upon thousands were present. Why only 3,000 were saved? Why not more? Why not them all? The same question that you are asking could be applied to the Day of Pentecost. They saw miraculous events there. But the result? Some mocked saying that they were drunk. Others received the word, and were saved.

Paul could have dismissed the vision completely. No one was compelling him to get saved. God doesn't force anyone to get saved. One of the greatest evidences of that is in Stephen's sermon:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (Acts 7:51)
--They did resist the Holy Spirit. And Paul was one of them.

It is not a biblical doctrine, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that it is. Acts 7:51 is ample evidence to show how the Holy Spirit is resisted, and has been resisted throughout ages.

 

False. Man can and does choose to believe. An example shown in scripture is Thomas:

Jn 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Thomas chose and refused to believe here. What caused him to believe later?

Jn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believeing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Did Jesus say Thomas believed because he was supernaturally regenerated? NO. Thomas believed because of outward external evidence, he saw Jesus with his eyes, something any seeing man could do. And a blind man could have touched his wounds.

Man can choose to believe, and man can believe because of outward external evidence presented to them.

 

Well stated. :thumbsup:

 

Really?

But you emphatically stated that the "reason someone doesn't enter into Heaven is due to their unbelief, period," (Post 83). Here, you're saying those alluded to in Romans 1 are not in unbelief, yet they still didn't enter.

See how often you oppose yourself?

Anyway, this thread has been done to death. See ya. :type:

 

Do you really think the Disciples could call down fire upon the Samaritans (Luke 9)? Do you think that Peter was any less sincere when he swore he would never deny Christ?

We have the words of many biblical characters which reveal the thoughts of their hearts, but the realities were something else entirely. The Disciples could have called till they were hoarse, there wouldn't have been so much as a firefly, and we know the end of Peter's resolve.

What makes you think that Thomas was any more accurate in his unadvised speaking? He doubted, but anyone who has struggled with doubt can tell you that doubts are nothing one chooses, and neither are they something that one can simply will away. It isn't like taking off a tie or putting on a hat. To take the statement of Thomas, "I will not believe," as biblical evidence that one has the power in himself to believe or not is to handle the account in a most unlearned and clumsy manner.

 

I asked first... Come on, this is REALLY easy. Yes, we can do something to stop God in His tracks, or no, we can do nothing to thwart a sovereign God. Which is it?

From your responses so far, I'll answer for you. "Yes. Man is more powerful and can halt God in His tracks." That, in essence makes man, god. Good luck with that (and the use of the word "luck" was intentional, for you will have no favor with God).

 

Apostle was NOT rank earned by anyone, else Judas would have never became one...
ALL were called and chosen by Jesus, and was position of authority that HE placed men into to, not because of them getting "enough" to become it, but because of His divine calling...

Apostle was called by God early on in his life, lord waited for 'right timing" to allow him to come to Christ, and he did take "down time" with jesus to get his revelations and to be built up in the faith in order to "lauch" out as an Apostle...

the number of those who accepted Christ on pentacost were those firstfruits among the peoples, those who were lected and chosen by God to receive Jesus on that appointed day of salvation...

Paul WAS preordained by God to by the "real" Apostle replacing Judas, to be the Apiostle unto the gentiles...
He was the one with great Mind, tjat the Lord chose to grant his greatest revelations of the faith to...

Right man right task right time
Do you still think paul could have honestly resisited at that moment in time fulfilling the predetermined plan and purpose of God on his life?

 

You asked about God's "desire," not his sovereign will. No, man can't thwart a sovereign purpose of God. Yes, man can displease God. (do something God doesn't desire). So the answer is "No" if you take "desire" to mean His Sovereign purpose, and the answer is "Yes" if you take "desire" to mean God's pleasure. I thought you would understand that when I pointed out God's desire for you to remain sinless, but clearly you haven't taken the time to think through all the implications of your question. As I advised Aaron, read up on the "two wills of God" written by Piper so that you will be able to make the distinctions and ask more specific and intelligent questions in the future.

These types of statements only reveal your own lack of objectivity and familiarity with the discussion at hand. When you can distinguish between God's pleasure/desire and his Sovereign active purposes, let me know and we'll continue our discussion.

Fredrick, you must also believe that you are more powerful than God and can halt him in His tracks since he doesn't want you to sin yet you keep doing it. Unless of course you believe that God does desire you to sin? Do you? Answer me? Yes or no?

 

If you remember:
1. The Apostles were chosen directly by an omniscient Lord Jesus Christ who knew the hearts of all men.
2. When Judas, who betrayed Jesus, and went out and hung himself, had to be replaced, then the disciples had to choose one to take his place. What took place.
It was a matter of prayer.
There was a matter of conditions being met.
He had to have seen the resurrection.
They had to have been with Jesus from his baptism onward.

In other words they had to be qualified.
After throwing lots, which was a method ordained of God, they chose one out of two qualified men, and Matthias was chosen. This was the careful process that was taken in order that an apostle was chosen when Christ was not physically present among them.

Thus your statement "ALL were called and chosen by Jesus," is false.

 

Read more carefully Aaron. I said (actually Paul said it, I'm just quoting him), they DID (past tense) know him and understand him. Here read Paul's words for yourself:

1. "his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood"
2. "what may be known about God is plain to them"
3. "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him"

So, what do we know from Paul's words? They clearly saw and understood all that may be known about God. They KNEW GOD. But, what did they CHOOSE to do with that clear TRUTH?

They chose to respond like this despite this clear revelation:
1. "they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him"
2. "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images"
3. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie"

So, they are the same as the demons. They KNEW God, and believed he existed but exchanged that truth for lies and so what happens to them:

1. "their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."
2. "they claimed to be wise, they became fools"
3. "God gave them over in the sinful desires"
4. "he gave them over to a depraved mind"

Notice these are NOT conditions from birth. Their prior condition was knowing God and his truth. They weren't deaf, blind and unable to understand from birth as Calvin's dogma of Total Depravity teaches. THEY KNEW and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, which is why they stand guilty!

So, I stand behind what I said in both of those posts. They knew God but traded what they knew for a lie and thus will perish.

"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." -Apostle Paul

 

No, because God knew about it in his omniscience does not mean that he made them choose as you infer.

Your conclusion and statement is wrong. Paul testified that he was one born out of due time. He testifies that he was "least than all the apostles." He did not count himself among the apostles. Matthew chapter one clearly states that Matthias was chosen to be the twelfth apostle, not Paul. Intellect has nothing to do with God's choosing.

Your human reasoning is faulty. God doesn't use human reasoning to accomplish his will. Yes Paul could have resisted God's will. Any man can. To be out of God's will is a miserable state to be in, but many are.

 

Skan, dude... I asked an intelligent question that you simply dislike. Pretending that you do not grasp the context of my question, hence the dodging and return questions rather misses the point of my question, doesn't it? I find it interesting that everyone else understood what I was asking... :thumbs:

 

By "everyone else" do you mean "Aaron," because he is the only one who commented, and he also failed to make the easy distinction between God's desire and his active Sovereign will?

It's painfully obvious that you refused to answer my question after I answered yours.

Let me ask it again: Did you thwart God's desire the last time you sinned? Yes or no?

Answer the question.

 

No. I'll leave you to figure out why.

 

I'll just quote you...