isn't the ULTIMATE Source of salvation In Classic Arminianism Ourselves?

Forget about demons. The only thing one needs to know is that they tremble, and if you ain't tremblin' you don't believe. That's James' point.

No one chooses to fear God. One either fears Him or not. And if one fears Him, it's because He believes in Him, and knows Him. And no one chooses to believe in God. He either does, or he doesn't. It's a state of being. One could sooner choose to grow wings and fly before he could choose to believe something that he doesn't.

You have the typical, Pelagian understanding of James. James did not in anyway say that a man could believe and yet not be saved. He was countering their claims. One cannot claim to have faith, and yet have no works, and one cannot claim to believe in one God, and yet not tremble.

One's choices are dictated by what he believes, not vice versa.

I don't recall offering one. You should apologize to God for your sloppy and shallow handling of His Word.

Which is counter-Scriptural. If you had looked up the verses I cited, you wouldn't have attempted an unrevised wording of your position. The fact of the matter is they DON'T know Him. If they did, they would NOT reject God's commandments. (See verses cited in my previous post.) They "knew" Him after a fashion, but not truly. Though the revelation of nature is clear, they cannot see it clearly, and think it foolishness, and accept a lie, thinking it the truth.

Again, if you had looked up the references I cited, you wouldn't persist in this ludicrous deluge of superstitious drivel.

Forget about the demons. You can't comprehend what the Scriptures say about yourself, and you think you can understand it about things you cannot see?

Here is what you need to know about them. They believe and tremble. James' point? If you believe, you'll tremble too. That's it.

I'll let Paul himself counter your false interpretation:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor 2:14

 

It is true that the natural man cannot understand the things of God without the Spirit. But this cannot be speaking of the gospel, and it is not saying man lacks the ability to believe. Note 1 Cor 2:12.

1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

This verse says we have RECEIVED the Spirit that we MIGHT KNOW the things of God given us. How do we receive the Spirit?

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

This question naturally implies men receive the Spirit by faith. So 1 Cor 2:14 cannot be speaking of faith or salvation. These persons have already RECEIVED the Spirit by faith. So these "things of God" cannot mean the gospel. It is speaking of a deeper understanding of God's word.

This is also shown by Pro 1:23.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

This verse shows the order of events in salvation.

#1 A man hears the reproof of God and turns in faith and repentance to God.

#2 God pours out his Spirit to this person who has repented/believed.

#3 Through the Spirit God makes man to know his words, gives him spiritual discernment of spiritual matters.

 

Aaron...

I have'nt "trembled" regarding God since 1982 when I was born of the Spirit.

I certainly trembled before I was born of the Spirit, but not since then.

How can you "tremble"...as a believer...when God says...

 

No, James' point is that faith without works is dead. It's not a "faith" that saves. It is a kind of belief like that of demons, which might cause one to fear, but not follow. It is a belief that doesn't lead to salvation, the same as those in Romans 1 had when they KNEW GOD and understood his attributes but chose to trade the truth in for lie, and not follow. They had belief or knowledge but not saving faith (just like Demons). That is his point.

But one can choose to trade in what they KNOW to be truth for a lie, which is the point Paul is making. They inherently, by nature, know God is and understand his attributes. They CHOOSE to trade that in for a lie and they choose not to acknowledge him as their God despite what they KNOW and UNDERSTAND. That can't be anymore clear.

Oh, did I put words in your mouth that you never said? I guess you know how I feel now.

I suppose you would say the same thing to men like Adam Clarke, or is this just the way you treat people here on the BB who don't drink your brand of cool-aid?

Hmmmm, let's see...

You: "They don't know him."

Paul: "For although they knew God"

I pick Paul. :thumbsup:

Hmmm, let's see....

You: "they cannot see it clearly"

Paul: " God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen"

Once again, I think I'll go with Paul. :thumbsup:

So, instead of dealing with my actual words and forming reasonable arguments to counter what I've said, you resort to labeling it "superstitious drivel," which if you look that up in the dictionary makes absolutely NO SENSE in relation to what I actually said.

First, it doesn't say they can't know God. It says, "neither can he know THEM," which is refering to "the things of the Spirit of God," which is in reference to the context of his discussion, "the deep things of God." (vs. 10). This says nothing about them not being able to clearly see and understand what God has openly revealed about himself to man. If it did, Paul would be contradicting himself like you have.

Secondly, you need to keep reading because Paul goes on to say that the "brethren" there at the church in Corinth also can't receive these "things of God" because they are too carnal and still taking the milk rather than the meat of the word. Paul is not contradicting himself by saying in one passage, "they clearly see and understand" God's revelation and now saying, "they can't clearly see and understand God's revelation unless they are reborn. Instead, he just saying that "the deep things of God" (vs 10), the things only known by the Spirit of God, must be revealed by God in order for us to understand them and we can't do that if we choose to be carnally minded, even as believers. We must walk in the spirit and listen to his instructions if we are going to grow past the milk and into the meat of his truth.

 

Allan,

you said;
[QUOTE1. You also state God does not desire them to be saved nor has He provided a way for their salvation


Allan....I believe God saves all He has planned and purposed to save in the eternal Covenant of Redemption.
We know that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked..as we read in Ezekiel. God has often sent prophets and messengers to people....yet not to all.
All have a God given conscience.....and the light of creation as two witnesses against them and their sin.
I know you do not or would not teach it......but sometimes those who do not hold the calvinistic understanding....almost imply that man has a blank slate,or is sort of neutral....just needing a little more info...or a helping hand.
But scripture declares that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven...not the love of God.
God's love is only in Jesus.....not outside of Him.
If a person is seperated from Christ[spiritual death in adam].....he is seperated from God's love.
Yet...we read that God is good to all men....the goodness of God is meant to lead men to repentance.....we are to preach to all men....
From our side as I have posted previously...we are to earnest and faithfully proclaim

Allan, This last part gets philosophical from a human standpoint. I do not care for the philosophical...but if I had to offer some conjecture.maybe this will help you or others.......lets make believe.....

Jesus has died for all men

some believe...some do not

result...... unbelievers in hell...second death


Jesus dies only for the elect but we do not know who the elect are..so we preach to All Men......any who believe will be saved

some believe.....some do not

result...... unbelievers in hell...second death


In your view Jesus dies for all...... but does not save all

In my view Jesus saves all he died for....but does not save all


both ideas have believers and unbelievers

your idea has sinners not really dead, just wounded and still able to choose

my idea has all dead sinners unable to respond.....Jesus saves a multitude of them...the Spirit enabling and saving them.


Arminians list verses and say...see HE Believed

Cals say yes...he did believe...and we know how and why he did,jn3:3-11
the unseen work of the Spirit.....not human will:thumbsup:

Will check later ,but must drive again,lol this job gets in the way of my posting,lol

 

Hello Icon good to hear from you again.
I will speak only to a couple of points below regarding your post but noted that you did not actually address my question posed to you.

If there no propitiation has been made for the non-elect and God does not desire to save them.. exactly :
1. How can the gospel be offered to those for whom it has not been supplied
2. How can they "repent and believe the gospel" message which is not for them?
3. How can they be condemned for rejecting a message never intended for them?
4. In light of the above how justify the offer of the gospel to the non-elect is valid?

Uh... I would read that again. Why does it state the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.. it was against those who hold the 'truth' in unrighteousness.. In other words God revealed to them spiritual truths (sin, righteousness and the Judgment to come) and they rejected it. The 'wrath of God' is revealed AFTER their rejection not prior. But what you have prior to this is God initiating and moving upon man (in general), revealing spiritual truths to them (sin, righteousness, and the Judgment to come).. as Prov 1:23-33 .. Note what it states.. turn and I will pour out my Spirit upon you.. I have called and you have rejected it, I have reached out my arms but no one cared (this is what Paul actually quotes over in Rom 10:21 and many other such places... all this upon those who are unregenerate in your view. That is a lot of work for one who is passing over them.. revealing, calling, reaching, rebuking for the sake of repentance or a repentant heart.. if I didn't know better I would say this is just what the reformed position states happens to the elect.

What goodness of God, will lead them to repentance?
Again, you state they have no hope, God does not desire them, nor has any propitiation been made for them... what are they being lead to repent for? Repentance is ONLY part of the gospel message for mercy unto God that He might save them through grace. (mercy and grace being two sides of the same coin and all)

Again, if the goodness of God leads them to repentance, the question is why? Biblically what is the purpose of/for repentance - always for God to turn away His wrath, have mercy upon them, and save them.

No, my idea and Classical Arminians as well as Classical Weslyans have them as dead in the biblical sense.

However, let me toss another question your way regarding this point.

If the term 'dead' or most specifically referring to 'spiritually dead' has a definition should not that definition be consistent in that usage (regarding spiritual) for all instances whereby it is used as such?

Thus when we read in scripture 'we are dead in sins' and 'dead' means unable or inability at all according to you (completely dead as in not able to do, think or believe), then this same definition must be applied to Romans 6:2, 7 referring to believers in the same spiritual sense - 'we are dead to sin' .. 'he that is dead is freed from sin'. Both refer to a state of being, one of being 'IN' sin, the other of 'TO' sin, however both refer to the exact same spiritual condition of 'ability' regarding 'dead'.

Remember that we are 'dead' in sin, thus our deadness is 'to' something or someone - God (who is alive). The 'in sin' describes why we are considered 'dead' as opposed to that which is alive and thus without sin (Col 2:13). Understanding this we also understand that if we are 'dead in sins' (and yes we are), then God is 'dead' TO us, as we are to Him. This is why Paul states we as believers ARE 'dead TO sin', as we are no longer IN our sins therefore whatever is 'in' sin is 'dead to us' as God is 'dead' to them as well (1 Pet 2:24). Yet with respect to ability we note that while in sin we can not please God and thus all our actions of righteousness are soiled. As such, we have no ability to 'do' good or salvic/meritorious works as all we touch is tainted or imbued with our sin. This is why God states only that which is of faith, not works but faith will and is able to please God. The term is in reality speaking to a relational point and contrasting us in sin to God.. and that which is of God to sin.

If your definition holds true then believers should no longer be 'able' or have the ability to sin as we see here the scriptures declare that we are 'dead' to them.. and the one who is dead is freed from sin. However a small issue crops up a little later in the same chapter where it states not only that we ARE dead but that we are also to 'consider' ourselves dead to sin. So now it appears that our spiritual inability to sin is contrast with the fact that though we are 'dead', we apparently have the 'ability' to do contrary to our nature.

 

Allan,
drove all night...need to sleep now,,,but quickly

I believe Romans 1 Paul is describing how men all the way back to the time of adam have been in rebellion and truth suppressors, and it continues after the flood ,up to the present day..

My answer to your question was put forth in two parts

positively from Gods purpose...then the Hebrews 10 passage as well as the last portion.....I will respond later on ...but must sleep now...am burnt like toast right now,lol

 

Yes.. do get some sleep! I know the feeling.. every Sunday into Monday I go for 32 to 38 hours before I get to sleep.

Real quick on the above.. so you hold it was a one time historical event for the chapters 1 - 3 as they actually go together..?

 

roughly.....I think Paul looks back and then forward to the cross..
I believe He is trying to show that all men everywhere are condemned and the only hope for the world, jew/gentile is in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Jew having the oracles of God, THe gentiles having the law in their conscience, and before Abraham there was a time when God had spoken directly with man.....and they turned from it.....God gave them over3x
idolatry,sodomites, reprobate mind, man has devolved...all guilty and condemned.....tower of babel, dividing the languages, nations

Paul uses this dark backround to highlight the pearl of great price.

 

That's what I said. No works, no faith. No trembling, no belief.

<snip erroneous notions about demons>

You didn't look up the verses I cited.

. . . whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him, 1 John 3:6

By whom? It is by faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

You mean the caricature of Paul that you imagine in your fragmented knowledge and incomplete understanding of the things he has written.

Here is the corner into which you've painted yourself. You assert that unbelief alone is what condemns a man. Sounds good.

But wait, that takes it out of the realm of choice. So to maintain your free will position, you must deny the fact that belief, or faith, is a state of being. You must make it into a concious and willful choice that one makes with the full knowledge and conviction of the truth of the thing he is rejecting, and the falsehood of the thing he is choosing to believe.

In otherwords, you're saying one could simply choose to believe in a Santa Claus, knowing there is no Santa, and he would be believing truly in Santa.

And you get that from Paul?

In every post, you assert that a man saves himself with a righteous act, and the reason one is saved and another is not is not because God is sovereign in salvation, but because one man is a better man than another.

 

But the demons do tremble thus they do belief, right? So, where are their works by this line of reason?

It seems to me you can believe and even tremble, yet still choose not to obey God (i.e. "trade the truth in for a lie."), which would not be saving faith. Paul says, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

So, what are you attempting to argue in quoting this verse: Either (1) Paul contradicted himself because in Romans 1 he said "they knew God," or (2) Paul is talking of "knowing God" in two different manners of speaking...one, speaking of "in relationship with God" versus "being aware and comprehending of his revealed existence and nature as the creator God."

I think the distinction is quite clear.

By all who stand "without excuse" when judged for "trading the truth in for a lie," and "becoming defiled."

Nope. I quoted him and you verbatim. Your problem is with Paul, not me.

You say they don't know God and Paul says, "they knew God." Now, obviously Paul is not saying the have a relationship with God as the quote in 1 John 3:6, but I've never argued that point. I've simply argued they clearly saw and understand the qualities and nature of God by which they could acknowledge him as creator and God, but they "traded" what they KNEW to be truth "for a lie." That is why they are accountable (without excuse.)

Where do you find the support for that leap? How does defending the concept that man can know God but choose to "trade that truth in for a lie" take it out of the realm of choice?

Uhhh, but there is no Santa and God is real. So, maybe the illustration you are looking for is this, "In otherwords, you're saying one could simply choose to believe Abraham Lincoln existed and was the President of the USA, knowing there was no Abraham Lincoln, and he would be believing truly in Abe."

My question then would be, how did they know there was no Abe? Did the one who created them make them unable to believe in Abe from birth even if Abe was really there and revealed himself to them through countless means?

Begs the question, yet another fallacy.

Still question begging.

 

Will you forget about the demons already? Demons are spirits, not men, and you cannot compare their natures. What an angel knows about God he knows by sight, not by faith. What an angel can or cannot do in respect of his knowledge is not to be compared except in this one respect: You say you believe in one God, well enough. The demons who have no equal upon earth in might, power and knowledge also "believe," and tremble.

No trembling, no belief. That's where it ends, Skandy. James not drawing a parallel on God's plan of redemption of men and of demons. As far the Scriptures are concerned, there is no plan of redemption for demons. Jesus did not take on the nature of angels. He took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, the elect. Quit trying to take it further than the Apostle intended.

You have many fallacious notions.

Only what I've said in the beginning. There is a carnal knowledge of God, and a spiritual knowledge of God. One is what natural-born men possess by nature, and the other is what those who are born of the Spirit possess.

The natural knowledge of God is darkened and corrupt, and cannot receive the knowledge of God for who He is, but only as corrupt men can conceive of Him, made after the image of a man, or a bird, or a beast or a bug. The world cannot receive the Spirit of truth, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.

The spiritual knowledge of God is incorruptible by virtue of its divine nature, a nature that those who are born of the Spirit are partakers, and who worship Him in truth and in spirit. But ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

That's what you say, and yet you make no distinction in the source and the nature of the knowledge. The only distinction for you is in the act of a man.

I assumed you knew what the knowledge of God was. My bad.

You're the one saying men can willy nilly choose to believe in a lie. Who cares what the lie is? For you it's what men do that count. So, I'm just repeating you when I say you believe men save themselves by a righteous act.

 

One, I didn't draw the comparison. James did. Two, why is it ok for you to compare the trembling of the demon's who are said to believe thus insisting men must do the same, but somehow my comparison is not relevant with regard to their works?

Nor am I. I'm only pointing to the fact that demons, like men, can see and understand God's attributes and thus "know God" and even fear him on some level, but yet not necessarily have saving faith. Do you deny that?

Interesting you say that right after a direct quote from Paul saying, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." Maybe your problem is with him?

1. Where is that distinction clearly made in scripture? 2. Then why would Paul consider them without excuse when this explanation gives them a perfect excuse. "God, we had a carnal knowledge of you, but we were born without spiritual knowledge and thus could not really see or understand."

Source: from God
Nature: enough to make all men to stand in judgement for their rebellion without any excuses.

I'd rather not take the alternative, which is that God's revelation was insufficient leaving man with the perfect excuse.

Was that aimed at me or Paul, because remember I just quoted him.

Stawman, yet again. I should start keeping a tally. You'd be in the double digits by now I'm sure.

 

God is the final authority no matter what decision is made.

 

I know you heard the (You just don't understand our doctrine bit) I'm not Arminian though I do believe in Christ Just as they do but it seems Calvinist keep insisting any non Calvinist here must be Arminian.

You know as well as I do no one believes they can save them selves. Why not stop the bull. The idea that man is the final authority is a Calvinist assumption of what others believe.
The Bible insist that men are in rebellion against God.

Deu 31:27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
Yet for some reason you don't think it possible.
This is what rebellion means
Rebellion
REBEL'LION, n. [L. rebellio. among the Romans, rebellion was originally a revolt or open resistance to their government by nations that had been subdued in war. It was a renewed war.]


In this case it's against God rather than government. Rebellion is resistance.
Here are a few more proofs that man does indeed rebel or resist God.
Job 34:37 For he addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God.
1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
Pro 17:11 An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.

Now it's your turn prove man cannot resist God with scripture.
MB

 

I am so in agreement with you MB, I so often grow weary of the "you can save yourself", and "you do not believe God is sovereign" allegations. The way it is so often trotted out makes it sound as if it is on some kind of reformed list of talking points. God has granted mankind the right to resist him, his love, his mercy, his forgiveness. I am convinced that there are and have been many men and women throughout redemptive history that God specifically and sovereignly purposed to accomplish specific tasks and roles with respect to the plan to offer salvation to all.

 

Don't you think God has the time to be patient?

After all God is Love and Love is and this describes Love;
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1Co 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
1Co 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth:

The above is the personality of God and below is His patience;

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Have you ever thought that if God is particular in His electing some men over others then it must not be true that God does not respect certain people.
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
MB

 

Is this the source of rebellion, the lust to be

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Invictus by William Ernest Henley

Is it the attraction of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: