-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John 10:26
- Thread starter jerry wayne
- Start date
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I imagine one becomes a sheep the same way a tare becomes wheat.
</font>[/QUOTE]Read Romans 11.I imagine that one becomes a sheep the same way that one becomes ingrafted into the vine, by leaving his unbelief. Some were unable to do that for a time, because they were being hardened.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Bot Simeon and Anna were prophets and received that information by divine revelation (regarding the infant in their hands).
The point remains.
This was advanced knowledge - it was NOT an indicator of who was saved and who was not. Your argument only works if you can successfully argue that the entire world was lost pre-cross except for those that figured out that the Nazarine was the Messiah pre-cross.
There is no scriptural support for that notion.
Even John had his disciples question Christ on this point.
Christ is saying in John 10 that only those ALREADY in His fold could be in a position to understand this.
The priests he addressed at that pre-cross time - did not accept this advanced truth - and yet AFTER the cross many of the priests did.
If this were a Calvinist world - then they would not have ever accepted.
In Christ,
Bob
Primitive Baptist
New Member
At least the Universalists are consistent. If you think about it, Arminians are just inconsistent Universalists. I would much rather be a Universalist than an Arminian because at least Universalists believe that Jesus actually accomplished something at Calvary.
jerry wayne
New Member
Skandelon,
I believe that the hardening of the Jews continues to this day since Romans 11:25 states that it will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Again, what happened to the free will of all of the Jews who have been hardened? I know that you stated that God judicially hardened them. But I thought that you believed that salvation is offered to all. Why then was it not offered to these Jews? Did they not have free will like every other person who has lived, is living, and ever will live? Is God sovereign in some instances, but not in others? It seems that if you believe in free will, then you must believe that everyone has it and God does not override it.
Thanks for your response.
In Christ,
Jerry
I believe that the hardening of the Jews continues to this day since Romans 11:25 states that it will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Again, what happened to the free will of all of the Jews who have been hardened? I know that you stated that God judicially hardened them. But I thought that you believed that salvation is offered to all. Why then was it not offered to these Jews? Did they not have free will like every other person who has lived, is living, and ever will live? Is God sovereign in some instances, but not in others? It seems that if you believe in free will, then you must believe that everyone has it and God does not override it.
Thanks for your response.
In Christ,
Jerry
Bob,
John 7:7
The world cannot hate you [Jesus' worldly brothers], but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.
The regenerated heart can become repentant over its sin, however.
Calvinists agree. That simply exacerbates the problems of the totally depraved individual. If a person is not regenerated, then the convicting power of the Holy Spirit simply causes even stronger enmity toward God.
John 7:7
The world cannot hate you [Jesus' worldly brothers], but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.
The regenerated heart can become repentant over its sin, however.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It is only the Calvinist that calls "The Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 completed at the cross "nothing".
An Arminian would never do that.
But IF the Arminian made the same mistake in 1John 2:2 with the "Atoning Sacrifice" (mistaking the SACRIFICE for completed atonement) as the Calvinist does - THEN they would need to be a Universalist - as you say.
See - we agree on something.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That's a calvinist conclusion that "requires" a Calvinist assumption to arrive at the endpoint. It assumes "calvinism" rather than demonstrating it.
If the lost person is "enabled" to choose by the "DRAWING" of God of ALL mankind John 12:32
then they are ENABLED to respond to the Holy Spirit convicting ALL - and AS MANY AS received Him - TO THEM He gave the right to be called the children of God.
The "difference" is not with God - it is "With as Many as RECEIVED".
But you assume that God ineffectively sends the Holy Spirit to inneffectively convict the world in a way that they can not possibly hear, respond or choose to accept.
Arminians do not make that assumption.
In ALL cases where Christ speaks of the world of unbelievers it is ALWAYS true that among those unbelievers are those who WILL believe later.
Fortunately - all agree there.
In Christ,
Bob
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That is a possible interpretation and some Arminian scholars hold to that, but I don't think it is correct. Here is why. I believe, as do many other scholars, that when Paul says the fullness of the Gentiles he simply means all those needed to establish themselves into the church.
One commentator put it this way:
Until the fulness of the Gentiles be--"have"
come in--that is, not the general conversion of the world to Christ, as many take it; for this would seem to contradict the latter part of this chapter, and throw the national recovery of Israel too far into the future: besides, in Romans 11:15, the apostle seems to speak of the receiving of Israel, not as following, but as contributing largely to bring about the general conversion of the world--but, "until the Gentiles have had their full time of the visible Church all to themselves while the Jews are out, which the Jews had till the Gentiles were brought in." (See Luke 21:24).
This interpretation seems to be the most plausiable, especially in light of Luke 21:24.
Jerry, you are asking the right questions. Follow me on this! Go to Romans 9 with this question wear Paul writes, "Why would God then blame us, for who resists His will?" This is where Paul is answering your question. He is telling us that God can hardened the Jews if he wants because it his lump of clay.
Ok? Now, Isn't that unfair? NO. God can have mercy on who he wants (even unclean Gentiles) and he can harden who he wants (even the "chosen" Jews).
But that is unfair!!! NO! Why not? God has been holding out his hands forever to the Jews (Romans 10:21) and yet they were unwilling (Matt. 23:37). The Jews have had ample opportunity to respond in faith to God's revelations and have continually rebelled (generally speaking) but the Gentiles will listen (Acts 28:28). So, to say that God hardens a group of continually rebellious people who have heard, seen and understood the things of God for generations so that now they can't hear, see and understand the gospel is a FAR cry from the Calvinistic claim that God in essence hardens all people from birth never giving them an opportunity to respond.
Do you see the difference? In one case you have God hardening only those who have chosen to rebell for years (Jews) while ingrafting another group of people (Gentiles). In the second case you have God hardening all people from birth and only showing mercy to certain select individuals.
Romans 9 is about the Gentiles and Jews not about the elect individuals verses the non-elect ones, which is clear if you read Paul's summary at the end of that chapter.
And here I thought we were agreeing on the fact that the Spirit convicts the whole world -- ALL. That's not a Calvinist conclusion that requires a Calvinist assumption.
We simply disagree on the result of the world-wide conviction. But we don't disagree on the fact that the whole world is convicted of sin.
Here is where you see it through the eyes of an Arminian. I also agree that it is "as many as RECEIVED". Only I see the receiving as having nothing whatsoever to do with decisions or actions on the part of the receiver.
Just as John 5:21 says, For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
It says the Son gives life to whom He will, not "offers life to everyone, and gives it to whomever will accept it".
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
________________________________________
Originally posted by npetreley:
Bob,Calvinists agree. That simply exacerbates the problems of the totally depraved individual. If a person is not regenerated, then the convicting power of the Holy Spirit simply causes even stronger enmity toward God.
________________________________________
But as I said above - Arminians do not agree that God convicts "all" inneffectively - but Calvinists do.
The point remains.
The calvinist argument that God's convicting can only harden the lost against God is a conclusion "needing" a Calvinist assumption rather than an argument "proving" Calvism.
In Christ,
Bob
Originally posted by npetreley:
Bob,Calvinists agree. That simply exacerbates the problems of the totally depraved individual. If a person is not regenerated, then the convicting power of the Holy Spirit simply causes even stronger enmity toward God.
________________________________________
Yes that is the one part we do agree on.
But as I said above - Arminians do not agree that God convicts "all" inneffectively - but Calvinists do.
The point remains.
The calvinist argument that God's convicting can only harden the lost against God is a conclusion "needing" a Calvinist assumption rather than an argument "proving" Calvism.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Indeed as I stated above - The Calvinist position is that when God convicts of sin - He does so inneffectively so that the lost can only be hardened against God.
Of course - it makes no sense to say that a dead person moved "farther away from God" or "became hardened after being convicted" - but then that is something Calvinism must deal with.
In the Arminian model AND in the Calvinist model - the John 12:32 DRAWING of ALL mankind IS sufficient to enable the choice that TD disables.
To that extent - both models are the same.
But in Calvinism God must force many other things - besides simply enabling the choice.
In The Arminian model - He enables the choice and the ability to hear the Gospel invitation.
Christ said "Behold I stand at the door and knock" He is not INSIDE opening the door - He is outside knocking.
He has granted grace that we may CHOOSE to open the door - even though He is on the outside knocking.
I understand. But that is a kind of double-speak that the Calvinist model is forced into because of the language of the text. IF the text would kindly USE Calvinist language instead of Arminian language you would not have to say things like "I see the receiving as having nothing whatsoever to do with decisions or actions on the part of the receiver"
Imagine how much more Calvinist it would have been to simply say truthfully "To as many AS I CAUSE to Receive Me - by an act of arbitrary selection - to them I have given the right to be called the children of God. My act in CAUSING them to recieve Me simply shows my previous act in arbitrarily selecting them is followed up by my subsequent act in causing them to act - by the sheer power of My will.".
Just as John 5:21 says, For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
And sure enough the Son is "NOT Willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".
It says the Son gives life to whom He will,
In Christ,
Bob
It makes perfect sense, and it's very Biblical. God hardened Pharaoh's heart multiple times. The point wasn't to move Pharaoh farther away from Himself, but to bring about a desired result. The desired result, in this case, was to bring Pharaoh to a point where he would not only let God's people go, he would let God's people plunder his kingdom.
God hardens whom He will, and He does so for whatever reason seems good to His own pleasure. All I was pointing out is that the Gospel does harden some and it plays a part in the salvation of others, depending on God's will and God's action within the heart of the person who hears it.
WHY He uses the Spirit and the Gospel to harden a person is another issue altogether, but you seem to be unable to conceive of any other reason than the nonsensical idea that the purpose is to make a totally depraved person more depraved so he's "farther from God", which is impossible. Fine, but you didn't get that straw man from me.
First, unless you're God, you have no idea how the selection is. So it is rather arrogant of you to say it would be arbitrary.
Second, imagine how much easier it would be to be an Arminian if you could only find ONE single verse that says God leaves salvation up to man's free will. But there's nothing even close to a verse like that. So you have to pump your imagination into words like "whosoever" and "all".
That's correct. So if the Arminian interprets ANY and ALL to mean ANY and ALL men who ever lived, live and will live, then you must believe in universal salvation. Because if Jesus plainly says He gives life to whom He will, and He wills it for EVERYONE, then EVERYONE will receive life.
Either way, Jesus says the Son gives life to whom He will, not the Son offers life to whomever will accept it of his own free will.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It makes perfect sense, and it's very Biblical. God hardened Pharaoh's heart multiple times. The point wasn't to move Pharaoh farther away from Himself, but to bring about a desired result. The desired result, in this case, was to bring Pharaoh to a point where he would not only let God's people go, he would let God's people plunder his kingdom. </font>[/QUOTE]Believe it or not, I agree with Nick on this point.
Just as God didn't harden Pharoah to move him farther away, so too God didn't hardened the Jews so as to move them further away either. In fact, in hardening them he provoked them to envy so that they might be saved (Romans 11:14), which does completely undermine the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 since they seem to think that those being hardened are the non-elect, who would never have even the possiblity of being saved.
The point is that men are NOT born hardened in that they ARE born able to see, hear and understand and they only BECOME unable over time due to their rebellion. That is why the bible warns us not to let our hearts grow hardened (Heb. 3) and it also indicates that had the Jews not been hardened they might have repented thus revealing their natural ability (Acts 28). This completely undercuts the foundation of the Calvinistic dogma in its teaching on Total Depravity.
Tumbleweed
New Member
Dear me! Did you really mean this? If so, Arminius would be embarrassed to have you claim to be his disciple. This is not Arminianism, but the teaching of the heretical Pelagius, who believed that the blindness of Adam's fallen state was not imputed to his descendants. His ideas were condemned at the council of Carthage - 418AD.
- Paul
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Dear me! Did you really mean this? If so, Arminius would be embarrassed to have you claim to be his disciple. This is not Arminianism, but the teaching of the heretical Pelagius, who believed that the blindness of Adam's fallen state was not imputed to his descendants. His ideas were condemned at the council of Carthage - 418AD.
- Paul </font>[/QUOTE]Weed,
You are confusing the issues. I affirm the doctrine of Original sin not the doctrine of Total Depravity. Actually I believe some wordings of the doctrine of Total Depravity I just don't agree with the teaching that assumes that men are born UNABLE to respond in faith to the gospel message.
And what in the world makes you think Arminians don't hold to this view? The fives points were drawn up by Arminians as points of contention, the first one being the doctrine of Total Depravity.
PLUS, who cares what Arminius believed look at what the scripture SAYS:
Acts 28:27: THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM."'
Notice Tumbleweed, that they BECOME hardened, not that they are born hardened. And also notice the word OTHERWISE which indicates their abilities had they not BECOME hardened. This is why the scripture warns us not to let our hearts grow hard. (Heb. 3) There are many doctrines that we hold to that were condemned by various councils and such...is that now going to be our standard of what we believe?
Arminius says...
III. THE FREE-WILL OF MAN
This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace.
But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.
This directly contradicts the doctrines espoused by most of the people on this board who call themselves Arminians.
Here's the crux of the difference. While Arminius believed one must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before one can believe, Arminius also believed that one could resist the Holy Spirit and reject the Gospel.
So he didn't really believe in free will (in man's unregenerated state) at all. He simply believed that, once regenerated, we either cooperate with the Spirit and be saved (by the cooperative works, although he doesn't come right out and admit that), or kick out the Holy Spirit and be unsaved again.
In reference to Divine Grace, I believe, 1. It is a gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards a miserable sinner, and according to which he, in the first place, gives his Son, "that whosoever believers in him might have eternal life," and, afterwards, he justifies him in Christ Jesus and for his sake, and adopts him into the right of sons, unto salvation. 2. It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man -- such as faith, hope, charity, &c.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to think, will, or do any thing that is good. 3. It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, that man may perform whatever he wills.
In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, "is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.
So he didn't really believe in free will (in man's unregenerated state) at all. He simply believed that, once regenerated, we either cooperate with the Spirit and be saved (by the cooperative works, although he doesn't come right out and admit that), or kick out the Holy Spirit and be unsaved again.
In reference to Divine Grace, I believe, 1. It is a gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards a miserable sinner, and according to which he, in the first place, gives his Son, "that whosoever believers in him might have eternal life," and, afterwards, he justifies him in Christ Jesus and for his sake, and adopts him into the right of sons, unto salvation. 2. It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man -- such as faith, hope, charity, &c.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to think, will, or do any thing that is good. 3. It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, that man may perform whatever he wills.
In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, "is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.