Is this the Arminian Stumper?

Eric B,

God, you, the Apostle Paul and me agree with your interpretation and it didn't even take a 'New York minute' to read and understand English or the Greek rendering of Romans chapter nine. It's not difficult if one lets words speak for themselves.

 

Eric, your missing my point here. Yes, your corrrect in saying that the Jews could have question God's justice within your interpretation (though it seems to be a stretch). Here's why:

God has always dealt with his people through election. The Jews have always believed they were chosen of God and others were passed over. (I think we agree at this point). So, election was the means by which God made Isreal a Holy (set apart) nation. But, just because they are in the lineage does not guarentee they are of the elect as the case of Esau proves. But it is the "children of the promise" who are the true Isreal. (I still think we agree to this point, correct?)

Where the rub comes is in talking about the way in which one becomes elect. Correct me if I am wrong but you believe that you become elect through the means of faith. Meaning God chose you because of your faith making you a "child of the promise" a part of the true Isreal. Right? (I'll assume I'm right in order to make my arguement)

It is at this point I believe you agruement falls apart. Why? Paul is careful to point out that Jacob was chosen before the twins had yet been born. Why? The scripture clearly says that God wanted his PURPOSE in ELECTION to STAND. It's not because of their acts of righteousness nor the will of their hearts (vs 16) that God elects them.

So why is it? So that election would stand even in the new covenant system of salvation by grace through faith. The "children of the promise" are saved by the same means the Jews of the Old Testament were saved. By grace through faith which is not from themselves, it is a gift of a Soveriegn God that has never in the course of human history left salvation to chance.

You assert that they are elected because of their faith in God. I'm saying they had faith in God because they were elect. Which of these concepts is supported by the whole counsel of God's Word?

So, Eric it's kinda like the question, "Which came first the Chicken or the Egg." But instead its, "Which came first the Election/appointing/choosing or the faith?" Well let's take a gander at the Word shall we:

In this passage, Jacob and Esau had not been born much less exhibited faith in God. Sounds like the electing came first to me. (Unless you believe as some Arminians do in the "foresight" of faith view, which has so many problems scripturally and rationally I won't even begin to go there)

Acts 13:48: Those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Hmmm sounds like the appointing came first.

John 10:25-30: Jesus speaking to unbelievers: "I did tell you but you don't believe...you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me (doesn't say they should or might). I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand (sound pretty secure). My father who HAS GIVEN THEM TO ME, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand (even more secure)." Once again, its sounds like we are sheep who are known by Christ and given by the Father to the Son BEFORE we ever believe. Wow (I still haven't heard any rebuttal on that verse.)

Before John 3:16 tells us that "whosoever believes in Him" will be saved, John 3:5-8 tells us we must first be born again. Which is a work of the Spirit that we have no control over, but it "blows" wherever it pleases. Once again it sounds like God does his electing before man does his believing.

John 8:47 answers the question, What is the response of someone who is not elect of God. Notice what Jesus says, "He who BELONGS to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." Once again, it sounds like one must BELONG to God before he can even hear much less believe. If Jesus believed as you do that everyman has a free will and can decide to follow, why would Jesus say this? It doesn't make any since! If Jesus were Arminian he would have had them close their eyes and bow their heads, had Peter play some soft harp music, and persuade them to change their minds. And if anyone could have persuaded someone it would have been the Christ.

You may argue, well Jesus has foresight and he knew they wouldn't believe. But, Peter and Paul don't preach much differently. Paul explains this in 1 Cor. 2:4 through the end of the chapter.

The question: From where does faith come? Goes to answer this point as well because after all, according to your view, it is the faith that makes you apart of true Israel.

Faith is seen throughout scripture as being from God.

With all of this evidence (which is only the tip of the ice-berg) how can we possibly be expected to believe that God election doesn't precede our faith?

 

I, for one, haven't been arguing about this "elect/choose"—"faith" cause-relationship order, nor "foresight". That is one area that I see as not being able for us to fit into our theological boxes. Kind of like the way the world views the chicken and the egg. Who can really know, and what bearing does this have on us today?) I believe the Spirit's comparison to the wind that you keep referring to better applies to this fact (It is quote a stretch to apply that to electing one and passing over another).

As for Jacob and Esau, Paul is using that to tear down their belief in being chosen through keeping the Law. God would now choose a community of people living by faith. It does not necessarily apply choosing one individual and in the sense of deliberately passing over another.

Acts 13:48 ("tasso") has been discussed to death elsewhere. Pretty much impasse.

"sheep"/"hearing His voice" and "belonging to Him" I discussed in your new "Question they can't answer" thread. Nobody always heard His voice, else they would not have been sinners, so this must be a state one can cross into.

Latreia, I do not have an axe to grind, and the states of heart was just an idea I threw in (I know it doesn't have too much weight). It just seems that Christ is dealing in more than terms of simple "elect vs. non-elect"

[ January 23, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Well when we get to the level vof such grandiose asertions we can safely say that teh arminian has abandoned all reasonable discussion.

Especially when he does not interact with the interpretation of Roamns 9 given that completely blows his thinking out of the water.

 

Had God and teh apostle Paul agreed with you, that is surely what they would have said. As it is, they said something else. You are right that it is easy when one lets the words speak for themselves. YOu should try it.

HOwever, including God and PAul with you and Eric is arrogant and out of line. Please refrain from using that approach here. We can talk about what God said. Let's not use this type of wording to do it.

 

I agree that he shouldn't have said that, but to be fair, the Calvinists do it all the time-- maybe not quite on such an individual basis, but Paul, Jesus and the other are quite often placed on "[our] side".

 

All Faith?

Does this mean that since God created us with the ability to have faith, that faith is from God?

It seems that man can have faith in whomever or whatever man wants to have faith in. But because God made us this way our faith in whatever must be from God.

Are you saying that man has no choice in where to place his faith or in whom! And that God causes man to have faith in Him whether or not man is submissive to God? This is Hogwash!

Are you saying that the lost are that way because God made them that way? The lost have faith too! Just ask a few thousand of them, you may get a few thousand things they have faith in.

 

(Hey Eric) Another case and point that you all don't have an understanding what Calvinist believe. We understand your beliefs, some of us probably held to them at one time, but you guys continue to force us to explain the most elementary principles of the Calvinistic belief system.

ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME: We don't believe nor does our doctrine teach that "God made people lost"

And Yelsew, do we really have to specify that we are talking about saving faith a discussed in the scripture. As apposed to "faith" in other unseen forces. Come on.

Yes some people place "their faith" in Budda, for example. But would you not agree that these people are decieved and misled. Why? It's their faith, meaning its from human understanding. Biblical faith is not from man but from God, according to the texts that I've already presented. "Faith" from man is no Faith at all. This is why Scripture presents Jesus as the author and prefector of our Faith, and not Budda or some other force out their. You can't call what the lost world has, "Faith" in the biblical sense of the word. I think even some of your Arminian friends might agree with me on this point.

What seperates our Faith from the "faith" of the lost in the world. Its source. It comes by the power of the Spirit, not through human reason, logic or understanding.

 

I agree and actually reworded my statement above before I posted it. In this case, it was more the manner in which it was said that bothered me. We all need to be careful not to become trite about this.

 

NO, human faith all comes from the same source, within us. God made us that way.

For Christians, the Holy Spirit confirms in us what the Word of God, the Bible, reveals to us, therefore we place our faith in the God of the Bible, His Son and the Holy Spirit.
For Jews, the Torah is the guiding light, it is what they base their faith upon.
For Muslims, the Koran is the guiding light, because that is what they base their faith upon.
For Bhudists, I don't know what the guiding light may be that they draw from.
For Hindu's, the same, I don't know their source material.
The athiests rely on the sports section of the local newspaper, or the "fishing news", Golf Digest, etc.

The point is this. Faith is an attribute of the human spirit, every human spirit has faith in something, and as many things as one chooses have faith in, that faith also resides in the human spirit. For Religion, human faith in a supreme deity is universal, except the atheist who by self proclamation believes in nothing. Personally, I have never met a true atheist, only a few wannabees.

All men believe there is a supreme being, God instilled that in our structure at creation.

Now, If the Bhudists have faith, and faith can only come from the God of the bible, why are they not Christian? Same for the Hindu's and Muslim's, and the Jews (the root of Christianity).

Why are there other belief systems spoken of in the bible such as Baalism, the religion of the Chaldeans, Romanism, Hellenism. Wasn't God also the source of their faith as you insist God is for Christianity?

After all, God created the heavens and the earth and every living thing there in. When Adam and Eve sinned, what we call the fall of man, didn't that fall likewise effect all mankind equally? Why then if God Elected before the foundation of the world did he pick America, a place not mentioned in the Bible for a debate on these issues?

That would indicate that we are Christian because we were born in a place that is under Christian influence! And not through spiritual power.

The point is we individually have the capacity and responsibility for faith. The object of our faith comes from our guiding light source material. We claim Christianity because our guiding light source is the Bible that reveals the Christ to us. Even so, we must individually come to faith and choose for ourselves what we believe. No one has ever become a Christian by reading the Koran, or whatever the light source is for Bhudists or the writings of MAO or any other.

Faith cometh by hearing, and Hearing by the word of God, not of yourselves it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast!

Why are Asians predominantly Bhudist? if faith comes from the word of God, and is a gift of God?
Why are Arabs predominantly Muslims if faith comes from the word of God, and is a gift of God?

I believe the doctrine of election is false doctrine, because it cannot be universally applied to all men.

Now that is a lot of rambling to say that I do not agree with you when you say that faith comes from God. Faith in God comes from God! If all faith comes from God, how do Bhudists have faith?

 

Wow, I don't know where to start with this one guys.

First, if you don't believe in the doctrine of election then you obviously don't believe the bible, because it is what presents us with the doctrine of election.

Now, you might hold to a different doctrine of election than I do, but you still have a doctrine of election with in your system of belief don't you? I would like to hear how your doctrine of election is universally applied when large parts of the world never even hear the gospel.

Your doctrine of election, if you even know what that is, is less universally applied than ours. Yours is dependant upon sinful rebellious hearts (like that of Jonah or even mine at times) to, by their own free will, decide to go a find the remotest parts of the world.

My belief says that God, in his love and divine mercy, doesn't merely leave it up to sinful man's desire to go preach the word, he makes sure of it! (ie Jonah, Moses, Paul--all of the prophets and apostles were compelled by God)

You doctrine leaves it in the hands of man.
My doctrine leaves it in the hands of God.

Who do you think is going to do a better job of getting the word out to those who need to hear it?

Did you not read my last post. Saving faith, biblical faith, the kind of faith that's not dead, is the only true faith. It is that faith I'm referring to as being from God. The other so called "faith" is from man. Faith in Budda is not faith at all, it's man made, not made by God. Which is why, we take exception to you equating "faith" in Budda as being from the same source as faith in God.

Our faith is given to us by God. It is divine, not from man. Rom. 12:3 : "act in accordance to the measure of faith God has given you"

Yelsew, who gave faith in that verse? GOD

So, where does faith come from? GOD

Where does "faith" in Budda come from? Man

Is everyone clear on that now.

[ January 23, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

God gives us weak faith? or faith that can fail?

Romans 14:1
Matthew 12:20
Matthew 14:31

God can strengthen faith - He can purify faith

1 Peter 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

Faith is part of man created by God to seek after God - it is the God shaped hole within each of us that seeks to be filled or fulfilled.

Remember whatever Adam did - Jesus undid and more!

 

If that were true, the feature didn't work very well, did it?

If what you say was truly God's intent, I think He would have done a better job.

 

Yes, there is a "measure of faith" (Rom 13:3) that is given by God, so there may be one person who exhibits stonger faith than another. As least Peter got out of the boat. Yes he can strengthen it and purify it. None of these verses speak of the faith failing as you imply.

My brother answered this sufficently. BTW, where do you find support of that in scripture? And you need to talk with Yelsew, he still thinks faith is from man, not God. At least you recongize it's from God--That's good.

 

The hymnist in keeping with the Word of God did not pen these words. 'Wonderful faith of Jesus reaching the most defiled; how shall my tongue describe it, where shall its praise begin.' But he did jot down these words. 'Wonderful grace of Jesus reaching the most defiled; how shall my tongue describe it, where shall its praise begin.'

The matchless grace of Jesus comes from God to us,[Ephesians 2:8] but faith is a persons response to His love [John 3:16 & Romans 3:22; 5:1] that Calvin almost totally neglected to write about in his "Institutes." Why? Because He overemphasized sovereignty over the rest of the attributes of the Living God, not keeping each one in proper balance, and thereby, unwittingly offering up to readers a lopsided Christian Gospel.

Overemphasizing sovereignty has done so much damage to Christian theology. An overemphasis on the grace of Jesus, however, would have been a good focus, because His grace cannot ever be talked about too much.

 

In my opinion, the reason why the world is laughing themselves into hell is because Christians have emphasized the lve of God too long. When I attended a Missionary Baptist church before I became a Calvinist, he was the best non-Calvinist preacher I have ever heard. He didn't stand up there and say, "God just loves you so." He believed that God loved the world, no dout, but emphasizing the love of God without expounding on the wrath of God, makes people comfortable in their sins. The way most preachers preach God in this country, no wonder the world thinks they have God wrapped around their finger. That Missionary Baptist preacher said one time,

"Sinner friend, you will either magnify God's grace in heaven or magnify His justice in hell, and just because you reject the testimony that God has given us concerning His Son, you are taking no glory away from God because He's going to get His whether you believe it or not." [quote from a tape sermon]

 

I very much agree. It leads to a minimising of sin and its impact, which of course is very much the problem of arminianism.

 

IMO it is very much a problem of arminianism. But the problem (perhaps a lesser one) that offends me most is that arminianism respects man's wisdom over God's revealed truth. As a result, IMO, arminianism paints God as a cosmic wimp - a sensitive, loving, politically correct but ultimately impotent father.

God will get His glory in the end, so it doesn't matter in the long run. But in the short run, I can't help but say that it annoys me. ;)

 

Either extreme, focusing on both God's love or wrath and ignoring one or the other is no good. I think the problem is both Calvinist groups and Arminians in the past overemphasized wrath to scare people into line; then society revolted and many churches, both Arminian and Calvinist went to the opposite extreme, of focusing only on love. The deeply Arminian "separatist"/KJVO fundamentalist types say the same thing about wrath being neglected (and sometimes blame Calvinism, in part)
So that problem is more of a generational one, and not "Calvinism vs Arminianism", because both groups have gone both ways.

 

So now hymns are equal in authority as scripture? If so, I can find lots of hymns that clearly support free will. If not, then what's your point?

Perhaps Calvin understood that while faith is a response, it one which has nothing to do with free will. There are lots of things that are responses. My leg kicks up when the doctor hits my knee with a little rubber hammer. That's a response. It is neither a free-will nor willing response. It is called a reflex. But it's still a response.

Of course, faith is not a reflex, but Calvin probably understood that the Bible teaches it does not come from us or our free will. And if he was right (and I believe he was), then your perspective is the one that is unbalanced, because you've put too much weight in the fictional ability of man to respond of his own will.