(Editor’s note: Kyle sent this in as a comment. I liked it so much I made it into a posting. And exercising my privileges as editor and BD, I made a couple or three modifications to it. But I don’t believe I changed the general sense of what Kylesie had to say.)
To understand the errant doctrine of Arminianism we can look at a simple aspect of one of the more interesting forms of mathematics: Probability.
For example consider a coin. A coin has two sides, heads and tails. Every time I flip the coin, there is one chance in two that the coin will land on heads. There is the same chance that it will land on tails. If I flip the coin 100 times, the probability is that it will land on heads fifty times and tails fifty times. In all probability If I were to perform this exercise for even more tosses, the likelihood is that 50% of the time it will land on heads and fifty percent of the time it will land on tails. This percentage becomes more likely the more I toss the coin.
However, let us look at something different, something called “possibility”. It IS “possible” that I can flip the coin 100 times and it could land tails up all 100 times Although very improbable, it IS “possible”. So we can’t discount the possibility of 100 heads or 100 tails in one hundred tosses. Keep this in mind for we will come back to this later.
The Arminian claims that it is ultimately up to the individual to accept the atoning sacrifice on the cross. This in essence is the free will doctrine which is espoused by these neo-Pelegians who think that man has the final decision regarding his salvation. If this is true then it is obvious that man only has two options.
- Accept Jesus as Lord and savior
- Do not accept Jesus as Lord and savior
It is pretty simple. That being said, after the atonement on the cross there is a set of two improbable possibilities we need to look at according to Arminianism.
- It is “possible” that NO person would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
- It is “possible” that everyone would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Although statistically improbable in either direction it is possible. And this leads to the crux of the matter. Mathematically Arminians deny the ABSOLUTE Sovereignty of God. In their view, according to free will God is only 99.9999999999… % likely to save at least somebody. However, there was a statistical possibility of .0000000000…1% that God’s atonement on the cross would be in vain and would save nobody. Afterall, it’s possible that everyone, in exercising their free will, may reject the work done by Jesus Christ. Because of this at the moment of death after Christ said, “it is finished” He could not state with 100% certainty that His work on the cross saved ANYBODY. There is the slimmest of slim possibilities that he died in vain and the whole Bible from Genesis on would be a lie. There is, according to the Armininians, the POSSIBILITY.
Now some of you may say I’m being too technical. But I don’t think so. God is either 100% Sovereign, or he is not. When it comes to God, 99.9999999% is not enough. He has to be perfect in everything He does.
In closing Calvinism is the only way that guarantees with 100% probability AND complete certainty that people will be saved. After all Jesus stated that there are those who would be drawn to the Father through Him.
Let me expound further.
I wrote this after some deep pondering between Calvinism VS Arminianism. After some time a few things came to mind considering the free will doctrine which to the best of my knowledge had yet to be considered.
It dawned on me that because Free will is of man and initiated by man’s ultimate decision it had occurred to me that it is possible that NO ONE would choose salvation. Once this thought occurred to me a light bulb, if you will, went off in my mind. I said to myself, “Self, with Arminianism God could have never been 100% sure that the death, burial, and resurrection would save anybody any time before or after Calvary”.
To sum up, Armianism requires God to sit back and wait to see if anyone accepts His offer of salvation. According to them, since God has no say in who accepts and who doesn’t, there is the POSSIBILITY that everyone on the Earth could reject His offer. And thus, there is the POSSIBILITY that God’s plan would save no one.
Once I had established these facts it dawned on me that no matter the likelihood of salvation we could not with 100% accuracy know that anyone would ever be saved. Once this was established it is by the Arminian’s own philosophy proven mathematically that God could NOT be 100% sure His salvation plan would result in anyone being saved. Under this supposition, the sovereignty of God which is not 100% but only 99.9999 - - fill in the number of nines you want - - certain. Alas it could be conjectured that God, by the view of the Arminians, is NOT in TOTAL control and NOT TOTALLY sovereign.
To expound upon this let us look at the definition of Sovereign.
- Not controlled by outside forces autonomous, independent, self-governing.
- Greatest in status or authority or power, supreme
By definition the God of Arminianism fails to meet the definition of Sovereign. Free will (as defined by the Arminian) dictates that mankind controlled his own destiny on this side of the cross.
Let us look at another characteristic of God. He is described as being omnipotent, or having unlimited power.
By the free will doctrine God fails to meet the standard applied to Him. He could not have unlimited power but rather is limited in his power because
- He was not the final authority on who is saved and
- Albeit remote, he could not with 100% certainty claim that His crucifixion would save anybody.
After all, it’s POSSIBLE that no one would accept the work he did on the cross. And if it’s POSSIBLE that no one would accept the work He accomplished, then it’s POSSIBLE His work was completely in vain. And of course, that’s just not possible.
I can’t wait for your responses!
She implied the...
An BooBoo’sDad:
Sehr geehrter Herr
Probieren Sie es bitte unter dieser Adresse: prhrkc.gmail.com.
Danke schoen, Genosse!
Peter.
The way calvinism defines God’s sovereignty, is terrible theology, and unbiblical. Hopefully I can address all of this foolishness next week, but right now my hands are somewhat tied up in business matters.
Hi Seekerman!
You’ll probably be wasting your time addressing these “blind guides” of Calvinism and Eternal Security. Nevertheless, give it a shot if it’s God’s will.
“And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of DAMNATION.” John 5:29
(During the resurrection of the SAINTS, saints will be sent to two different destinations. Some will be resurrected to life. Other SAINTS will be resurrected to damnation in hell!)
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the WRATH to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of REPENTANCE, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the FIRE. (Luke 3:7-9 KJV)
“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.” (2 Peter 3;9)
(Believers who don’t bear fruit will be cut down and cast into fire.–John 15:6 The sinner and the saint have the same option: Repent or perish! That’s the only way they’ll escape God’s eternal wrath.)
“Now REPENT of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away.” (Acts 3:19 New Living Translation)
(Without repentance, there’s NO reconciliation with God. 2 Chronicles 7:14, Isaiah 59:2, Luke 13:3, 5, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:22, Romans 2:3-6)
“For the kind of sorrow God wants us to experience leads us away from sin and results in salvation. There’s no regret for that kind of sorrow. But worldly sorrow, which lacks REPENTANCE, results in spiritual death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10 New Living Translation)
(Saints must become sorrowful and repent. Godly sorrow brings repentance which yields salvation.)
“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and REPENT, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will REMOVE thy candlestick out of his place, except thou REPENT.” (Revelations 2:5 KJV)
(This warning to the Ephesus church is applicable for us today. Repent or be removed from the candlestick!)
Anyone who teaches differently is a heretic.
On behalf of all the Calvinists and Eternal Securists who follow this website, it needs to be renamed to: “Heresy At It’s Best By Melvin Jones” .
Divine Truth
Email:
divinetruth3@yahoo.com
Every single one of your arguments could be answered very easily and has been done no less than half a dozen times on this site ALONE. Yet, if you feel the need for conversation: cjpearson03@gmail.com
Well said, brother. Well said, indeed.
They have a crazy notion about God, by not knowing the different wills of God, i.e. permissive, absolute, perfect, just to mention the 3 that I know of.
And to say that it is up to man, is to speak from ignorance, because God has His chosen in whom He draws by His Spirit. So no man can come unless he is drawn…John 6:44, and that sounds very sovereign to me.
God gives salvation, it’s up to us to recieve it and accept it. Sovereign is the gift because if there is no presentation of that gift there is no salvation.
Can the Creator of the universe not be sovereign?
I think not!
If it is was so much up to us why then would we be admonished so frequently to strive that we may/might enter in? God is so sovereign that it is Him in whom we are to lean upon for our righteousness, which is in Jesus and not of ourselves.
Rom 5:17 ….. righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.
Jhn 15:19 ……but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Everyone say “Hello” to my good friend Vaughn. Well said brother, well said indeed!!
Awesome post! I too have had similar thoughts concerning the idea of “Particular Atonement”. If, indeed, Jesus died on the cross for ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then no one should go to Hell. If someone does go to Hell, then they have gone despite the fact that their sins were already paid for in full by Christ.
This fits into your idea simply because if God did not predestined some then He would have simply had to lay down a blanket atonement for all people. Going back to what you said, there is a possibility that none could have accepted His offer and all men go to Hell. If such were the case all humanity would lie in anguish in a Hell that Christ died to rescue them from. In the end we have two people (the sinner and the savior) dying for the same sins. Does not seem like a just God to me, but who am I to argue.
Personally, I believe in free will, but I also believe in the sovereignty of God. I really don’t believe that anyone can FULLY explain human responsibility or how much choice we have in the matter of salvation. This is an ongoing argument that has existed for centuries. Great article! I love the analogy, but I think it’s a dead horse that always ends up with the same answer: WE DON’T KNOW.
(MN: We don’t know what? )
The post/presentation was good. God is Sovereign, and mankind has choices (aka free will). It is certainly one of the great mysteries how God’s Sovereignty operates and works through or in spite of the choices of men.
The whole topic is vast and deep (Sovereignty and free will). There is scriptural truth for both.
In regards to the God’s wills, there does seem to be a biblical implication of God’s perfect will and permissive will, specifically in 2 Peter 3:9 if I’m understanding it correctly.
Peace and blessings
arminians (and shamefully some calvinists) usually appeal to the whole mystery thing between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, and some arminians would argue that God’s sovereignty and human free will are a mystery, but i have never seen any of them appeal to scripture to defend these views of mystery.
it’s really very simple: humans are responsible before God because God is sovereign. he has decided to hold people accountable and he has the power to enforce this decision. whether man is free or not (and he’s not) is irrelevant. it’s no mystery at all. Romans 9:18-23 makes this point very clear. the potter can do whatever he wants with his clay, and that means he can hold his clay responsible even though it is he who molds the clay.
brother tee jay, your reference to 2 Peter 3:9 is not very beneficial because i can argue in favor of Calvinism using this verse. and that’s what i’ll try to do here briefly. the whole context of that chapter is that the day of God’s judgment is at hand. Peter is telling his listeners in v. 9 that God is withholding his judgment until “all…come to repentance.” the promise in this verse is the promise of his coming (v.4). so God is waiting for this “all” group to become Christians, and then they day of the Lord will come. if this “all” group was everyone without exception, then logically speaking, he would never come back, because not everyone will repent. so this “all” group must be smaller. how can we exegete this from the context? well, note the audience of the letter given in 1:1(”to those who have obtained like precious faith with us”), as well as the reference to “beloved” in 3:1, and finally the “us” (or “you”) in 3:9. the verse would make no sense saying that God is patient towards his people and then out of nowhere it says that God is not willing that any human being should perish. if it said that God is patient towards everyone (instead of “us”), then it would be fitting. but Peter doesnt; he makes it clear in the context who “all” is. there are other remarks that i could make but i’ll withhold. if you object, please present your own exegesis.
it is amazing though, as Mr. Jones has clearly pointed out, that arminians are fond of red herrings when confronted with the consistent biblical truth of an effective and specific atonement (or just calvinism as a whole). they know how to avoid the point by arguing from intuition, or emotion, or by appealing to mystery. if Christ died for all humanity, why’s anyone in (or going to) hell? that’s the question.
Hey Brother SGP
I’ve never called myself either a Calvinist or Arminian. However, for label sakes I would fall under Calvinism.
I may have used mystery in the wrong way. There are some things that I believe, but I don’t totally understand. The Trinity is a prime example (One God Three Persons). This is a doctrin that orthodox Christians believe, but not even the most well versed and scholarly Christian theologian can make this simple or “logical”. It is very mysterious to our finite minds. Likewise, the Sovereignty of God and will of man is mysterious to our finite minds.
There are scriptures that support both positions (His Sovereignty and man’s “will”). John 3:16 seems to point out that Christ’s death and the offer for salvation was extended to the whole world (not Inclusionism), but that we have the choice to accept it. Scripture as a whole seem to indicate that God does reach out to every one in one way or another. The passage in Romans 17:16-32 seems to point out both God’s Sovereignty and man’s choice (to seek Him, reach out to HIm and find Him v27; all people are commanded to repent v 30).
I’ve looked up Sovereignty in the dictionary, but I think it would be a good idea for it to be defined on the site. Break it down to the least common denominator. What people mean and what the meaning is seems to dance around the big theological word. Does Sovereignty the way people understand it, mean that God makes people sin? I don’t really disagree with what you wrote, but sometimes the whole concept of God’s Sovereignty seems to be oversimplified (along with other orthodox concepts), which I think is a big mistake that takes it to an extreme that it wasn’t meant to be taken to.
What seems to be said or implied is that God in His Sovereignty makes people (fill in the blank) do evil, do good, follow Him, follow Satan etc. And the implication is that basically we have no choice on whether we are “saved” or not (for the record, I believe in predestination and election); in other words, we are basically preprogrammed robots under the control of God. Was Adam preprogrammed and made by God to eat the fruit, or did He chose to eat it?
Does His Sovereignty apply to every thing, besides salvation and damnation? I ask this because in the Corinthian letters it talks about how we as believers will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to get or lose rewards. Now, are we going to be rewarded for what we choose to do or are we going to lose out because God made us do wrong? I’m asking this based on the implications that have been presented.
So again, I appeal for Sovereignty to be defined and differentiated from fatalism, because the way it is being presented is kinda blury.
I believe in God’s Sovereignty, but it is the extreme implication and oversimplification that God makes people do things (sorta like people saying “the devil made me do it”) that I disagree with
After all, James 1:13-14 points out that when we are tempted we should blame God. And perhaps what is presented and implied is correct (and I mean this in all sincerity), but I don’t see it that way…not yet anyway 
Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you and others are saying.
Your breakdown of the 1 Peter scripture is good, and I don’t necessarily agree nor disagree with it, but it does raise questions. Is God being patient with Himself, or is He patient with the people who are to be Christians? What I mean is that for sure He changes the hearts, but the implication is He’s waiting on a response from the soon to be Christians. So does this mean He’s patient with Himself in either making them become Christians or is He patiently waiting for them to respond (and I know He’s not patient with Himself, but that’s what your reasoning seems to imply).
By the way SGP, your tone is pretty cool, and I hope that mine is coming off as non-confrontational as well, even if I misunderstand and/or disagree. I know from experience how tone can sometimes be lost in postings, and before you know it folks are verbally going for each other’s juggular.
Peace and blessings
It’s really interesting the way people read a post and then proceed to ignore the information. Vaughn, all you did was repeat the stuff that is addressed in the post! How about stretching a little and actually address the post itself? Or is that a little too much for you.
And let me get this straight, according to you there is a will of God that is less than perfect? The only will I see is His will, which is good, and acceptable and perfect (Rom 12:2). Now there is that aspect of His will which we can know and that aspect that we don’t know. But the other stuff you present is just a way of justifying/explaining away the troubles with Arminianism; troubles you didn’t address at all.
Melvin
I think by “perfect will” Vaughn means (at least way the I have always heard the phrase) is that God’s perfect will would be something like God saying He desires none to perish, but all to repent. Yet, we have to reconcile that to the idea that none come unless God draws them So, which is it? It is both and, so I think (though I could be wrong) that this is where it comes from.
Maybe my intellect is as advanced as most that post on this site, and my memory is not what it ought to be, but my friend my dialogue on this isn’t contrary to what you posted today, hence the response, if you’re looking for a fight you’ve got the wrong one my friend!
(MN: I didn’t say it was simply contrary. I said you didn’t address it post’s primary point. )
Nor due I choose to be a clone of anyone because God made us seperately and individually, and I do believe that we serve Him collectively.
Maybe I choose to serve Him by faith while knowing that God is Sovereign! And like you say maybe it might be too much for me, and if so I’ll keep living and believing.
You said to me;
“And let me get this straight, according to you there is a will of God that is less than perfect?”
Did I say that? Please don’t twist my words! (MN: Yes, you did. There is according to you, His perfect will. Then there are those wills that are less than perfect - permissive, etc. If it’s all perfect, then call it perfect. Otherwise there are wills that are less than perfect. )
I said “permissive, absolute, perfect”
Permissive by what He allows, i.e. The havoc that goes on today that is not of Him, but is of the adversary the Devil.
Absolute because what He says or does, can’t/wont anyone in creation change!
Perfect which by my estimations is what will be once all enemies are put under His feet. (MN: So as long as His enemies are not under His feet, His will is not perfect? )
I still think that it (the post) was a good read, but you could use a lesson on courtesy! If I’m the clone of your person I can keep it moving if invited to. No skin off of my backside!
Kudos Melvin, finally a meaningful conversation on your site. That devotion time must be paying off. How is your wife coming along?
(MN: Thanks Eddie! Uh, in keeping with your lame attempt at taking a shot at me, let me ask you if you have done any kind of investigation to find out how tight your pastor and John K. Jenkins are. Your last comment indicated you really didn’t know who your pastor associates with. The wife is coming along well. We finished Hebrews and will be starting Romans, one of my favorite books of the Bible, this evening. I’m counting on some really good discussions when we start there. In fact, I think we made a good deal of progress this past week while discussing the persecuted Jews addressed in Hebrews and the exhortation the writer gives to depend on God for help in being obedient in face of the difficult circumstances in their lives. )
Here we go again…..MJ, I cringe to when I think about all the attacks from my brothers and sisters on here, but I have a question:
What are the odds that a pure biblical doctrine could come from people like Todd Bentley, Joel Osteen, etc? Zero, right? Well, why is it that people are so dogmatic about a belief system proposed in the 1500’s by a murderer, (Calvin had 58 people executed) and a tyrant? What are the odds? Also, following the assertions of Calvinism to their conclusion, then is God responsible for all the acts of men? Is God, then the author of sin and death? If God controls all the pawns down here on earth, why does He ask us to “compel” sinners into the Kingdom? If God is responsible for the chosen, then is he not responsible for the unchosen, therefore making Him responsible for sending much of His creation to hell? These kinds of straw man arguments do not pass the muster of a website of this calliber.
(MN: Rev!!! It’s good to have you back. I’ve missed you. So what was strawmannish about the presentation? )
Mj, I have never really been gone, its just that people usually articulate my thoughts ahead of me, and often times better than me. I check in several times a week as my schedule permits. Kyle’s argument is strawmannish because it sets up a scenario which is favorable for him to knock down with his own logic, but crafted in a way that automatically leads to his desired conclusion. (our church’s bass player wrote a great comment on the other site) Say I wanted to do the same thing….
Either :
A) John Calvin was a bad, bad man and had much in common with the pimps you do so well in exposing
B) discovered the exclusive mechanism that explains perfectly the ins and outs of our salvation
Then, since I am heavliy favoring Arminiamism, ask questions by my “logic” to point out that the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Calvin being in error.
Having said that, this website, I think, is better served when it is taking on the 500 pound gorillia in the room: Pulpit pimps and their mega-churches for that part. I am growing tired of this debate. The Southern Baptist Seminary is here in the Louisville area and I have gone round and round with them (and you on here). I have not changed my position at all, but I think it is a 500 year-old argument that will not matter at all when I am standing in front of my Lord. Church, let’s put aside this argument and unite to work together to win the lost, which is our Great Commission.
And that is the crux, I would fellowship with many of you who I have read throughout the years, who would fellowship with me?
(MN: So where is the strawmanishness in his position? Are there not but two choices? To reject or accept? According to the Arminian position, is not God removed from the equation and does it not rest completely on man and his choice? What proposition is faulty in the scenario?
By the way, I don’t expect there to be a resolution. But the very exposure of the concept to people is, I believe very profitable to them, even to you. )
Rev_AK,
Your looking at this all wrong so you don’t have to address the facts. You made a hokey response that does not answer these basic questions.
According to Arminians it is up to the “individual” to make the decision to accept Christ. You accept this fact obviously. Therefore there are only TWO options, Choose or reject. Hence the heads and tails scenario. Likewise because it is entirely up to the sinner (according to the Arminian) who is already condemned (biblical) to choose freely(?) God could not have known if His Son died in vain because it was out of his hands after that. It’s pretty clear and I wish you would address the issue and not give immature petty arguments with no substance. I really would like to hear your defense of Arminianism not a bashing of my example I gave. In other words stick to the topic please.
Kyle
Rev AK, the position of predestination was around long before Calvin (read John 17). Paul spoke of it, Heck even Jeremiah spoke of it. If we want, we can go back to GOD speaking to Moses, “have not I made the deaf, the dumb and the blind…” Was it not God who chose Pharaoh to lift up his heart against Moses– and God?
I would fellowship with you as I do others who believe as you do, my desire is simply to take the truth of the entire Word of God and live it, love it- because He loved me first!
free will, god put adam and eve in the garden and said you could eat from this tree but do not eat from that tree, the gives man an option which means to me that he has a free will
And again I point you to Ex 4:21, And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
Did pharoah choose to harden his heart or was it not the Lord?
Selah- pause and think on that.
Furthermore, Ex 7 And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Who hardened Pharoah’s heart? God.
What else is there? Ezk 36 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Who changes the heart? God and God alone.
You see Selah, we love Him because He first loved us. Does that mean that we are not responsible for our own actions? yes we are responsible for our own actions. But it does not mean that God is not in control, because we all know He is in control of everything. SO how can he be in control of everything, but not in control of what you do? Surely with every sin that someone has done, they could have gone a step further. Again, there is no excuse for sin and we cannot blame God for us sinning, but at the same time we were chosen in the Lord from before the foundations of the World! It’s not an easy way of thinking, but it is the truth.
I enjoyed the post but surely the typical arminian response would be that God being sovereign foreknew that people would come to Christ therefore eliminating the “possibility” that Christ’s atoning work be for nothing.
(MN: So you’re saying He died because He knew some people would accept? So then, man is in the driver’s seat? )
No, Cushie is not agreeing with that at all, but it is the response I get from Arminian friends when I present the Kyle type arguement. I liked Kyle’s presentation, but I don’t believe the logic is as tight as it may first appear.
Cushie,
I already know the response and have thought about this very thing. You can say to the Arminian that by their premise then God only decided to send forth his son because he foreknew someone would have chose him. In this case thank goodness man is in control and people chose otherwise God would have never sent his son if he already seen in advance that no one chose. In essence the Arminian never puts God in control. You see it’s actually quite easy to deconstruct an Arminian.
Kyle
ok, so God foreknew that some people would somehow generate repentance and faith in their own hearts (of course, no man has the ability in himself to believe or repent) and receive Christ and his righteousness. so then why does the arminian still declare that Christ died for everyone? i mean, God knew that not everyone would accept. and even the arminian admits that God knew when he sent Christ who would reject his grace all the way till Christ comes again. so why would God send his Son to die for everyone? the arminian must still answer this. and simply to say he wants to give everyone a chance only undermines arminianism (by making it clear that it’s unbiblical) because it means that Christ’s death doesn’t truly save since he died for everyone. it means that, at the least, it is the combination of the sinner’s decision and Christ’s death that saves. of course, Ephesians 1:7 and Romans 5:9,10 contradict the notion that Christ’s death is insufficient, and these are just three of many verses.
Brother Melvin and brother Kyle, i appreciate your zeal for defending the biblical truths of the reformed faith. too many people hassle you for putting this up because doctrine is so undervalued in evangelical churches beyond just the pimp organizations. they forget that Paul said to Titus that a man qualified for ministry (and i would argue all Christians) should “[hold] fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict (Titus 1:9, NKJV).”
People: In the final analysis, God is not preparing (already prepared) a heaven so he can sort out those who believe in Arminism and those who hold Calvinistic views. He is coming for a Bride without spot or blemish and not a church body that is making decisions of one’s
eternal resting place based upon if you came to Jesus via an argument of Calvinism or Arminism. The Spirit of God draws and in that drawing there is no inclination of
Arminism and Calvinism…it is just repentance and the Lordship of Jesus. When I witness I do not prepare arguments for both arminism or calvinism, I simply state Jesus Christ and Him crucified. The doctrinal differences between these two camps is such that I only convey the thought that you must be born again….not what camp you should be in or what camp I will argue you into.
Salvation is a free gift. We don’t earn it or deserve it. (MN: Apparently not. According to an Arminian point of view, I have to have something of nobility in me that the other guy doesn’t have. And that something of nobility allows me, a man who is dead to his sins and an enemy of God, to on my own turn to God. That’s not grace. That’s works. ) As with a gift, you can accept it and go your way rejoicing or you can decline it and accept the consequences. The gift of God came with no strings attached as in I must do something to get if from your hand to my hand. Arminism and Calvinism are in the final analysis, shrill arguments that can not put you in the company of the redeemed or take you out of the the Lamb’s Book of Life. The Cross of Christ is not demarcated by arminism or calvinism…that is our spin on doctrine. Arminism or Calvinism is not vital to my salvific experience or walk in righteousness.
There. It has been said. Now, all of you calvinists send me an offering and all of you arminians simply shout for joy!
(MN: HEY!!! I’m working this side of the street. )
Praise the LORD!
Melvin, I was wondering if you were on vacation(Smile). You know the pimps never stop(LOL). Awesome, thought provoking, and challenging post. This is my humble attempt and I will try to keep it short.
GOD’s sovereignty and Adam(mankind)’s free will or free choice started at the beginning. GOD gave dominion to Adam(male and female) over ALL the earth with conditions. See Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:15-17. We all know what happened–Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden and “sin nature and death” came into ALL of the human race.
GOD “was/is/will be” SOVEREIGN because HE did not let Adam and Eve eat from the tree of life and live forever in a “sinful state” If GOD had allowed this, all human beings would have been “fallen humans” just like Satan and his minions are “fallen angels”.
–IF this would have happened–there WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY SALVATION or REDEMPTION-PERIOD!
Because of Adam and Eve’s fall, Dominion in the earth realm was given to Satan–that’s why he is called “god” of this world.
GOD ALMIGHTY,JEHOVAH, YAHWEH, YHVH–Already knew Adam(mankind) was going to sin and fail temptation. That’s why JESUS CHRIST was the LAMB slain from the foundation of the world–Rev 13:8.
The 2nd ADAM–JESUS CHRIST, YAHSHUA HAMASHIACH, THE MESSIAH–came down from GOD and with HIS “Atonement on the Cross, Death, Burial, and Resurrection”, CHRIST took back the dominion…all power in heaven and earth is given to ME. Matt. 28:18
JESUS took back the keys of the kingdom of heaven and gave the keys to the Church(earth realm).
Man’s free will today.
Those of us who are Christian believers past, present, and future “CHOSE” JESUS CHRIST, THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE! We decided to “Surrender” to Heaven and Not “Earth–the devil’s kingdom”. There were many Christians that planted the “Word” of GOD in us, some came along and watered, and then there was birth–Born Again! Our hearts were opened to the Gospel. THIS IS KEY–this is why the Devil has millions of “false religions” to deceive and destoy souls of men. The devil being a “great liar and thief” knows the Word of GOD and knows the WAY is NARROW and the only WAY is CHRIST! The enemy is blinding alot of souls especially with the pimps–can we imagine how the LORD JESUS CHRIST feels about the way the Churches and the leaders in America represent HIM as a whole today. Because GOD will not violate HIS Word, GOD allows this because GOD gave us Choice to chose eternal life or eternal damnation.
Parable–when we were (or some may still be) in high school or college, etc.–there were students/peers who chose to study and students who chose not to study. Those who chose to study and go to class EXCELLED, the ones who chose not–either got a “C” or worse, failed or flunked out! That’s life folks, we cannot make excuses for our sins or shortcomings–GOD has given every human being a spirit to respond to HIS HOLY SPIRIT. HE does not force HIMSELF on anyone!
I close with Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Enoch Walked,
Your taking Joshua 24:15 out of context.
Arminians are taking this verse out of its context . The Jews are not being instructed to choose “Salvation” rather they are being told to choose “sanctification”. The Jews by this time were the chosen/Elect long before this. The Jews did not have a decision to choose God in terms of election. This is quite rudimentary.
Please defend yourself.
Kyle
Kyle, do you not see the word “choose” in Joshua 24:15. Joshua was addressing that “generation” who were the 12 tribes of Israel, not just “Jews” in his farewell sermon/message. The jews are 1 tribe–Judah! There were even gentiles or strangers who were not in the bloodline of the 12 tribes that chose to dwell with Israel and chose GOD with conditions to live under Moses Law.
to make a “choice” in his farewell speech. Salvation was available to all then as it is available to all men–since Acts to present, there is no longer a “chosen” people. Salvation is available to ALL. It is not the Father’s will (perfect) that any perish, but men come to repentance.
Very simply 2 Choices.
You either choose to bow your knee to CHRIST in this life and the life to come or you will bow your knee when HE judges you. Everyone is going to heaven, but the key is will you stay–the CHOICE is ours.
(MN: Actually, according to Arminians, you choose to bow to Christ in this life or you choose not to bow to Christ in this life. You kind of fuzz it up when you speak of the bowing in two different places. )
Thank you Professor Melvin for correcting me.
Let me humbly try to explain it better.
I DO NOT disagree about an election and calling from GOD. No human being deserved this, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD. The key to calling and election, many are called but few are chosen. Philippians 2:12 states work out your own salvation with fear and trembling and 2 Peter 1:10: brethen, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for “IF” ye do these things, ye shall never fail
Now in the parable of Matthew 22. An invitation was sent out and they would not come. GOD invites all and JESUS paid the price for all–This is the grace and love of GOD–any man can come through the work that JESUS accomplished being THE PASSOVER LAMB. There are many who will come. Some even treated the servants who were the messengers very bad and worse case, slew them. GOD is not like Satan. Satan forces the agenda and tries to violate you for he is an attacking spirit. The Holy Spirit is gentle and woos you like a man woos a woman to be his bride(case example). Strong’s concordance states that man has a “free moral agency to choose”. That’s free will. As christians(all christians are ministers) we have been called then chosen by GOD(yes before heaven and earth were made) to be HIS witnesses, just as Israel was chosen. But Israel (the northern kingdom and southern kingdom) “chose” to not wholeheartedly follow GOD after HE delivered them from Egypt and then after Babylon up until CHRIST came HIMSELF. Now when the remnants repented, HE still showed them undeserved mercy and grace…HE used captivity and shame to convince them to repent of their sins and repentance, but they had to make a decision or choice to repent…Remember this was before the Holy Spirit became available to all believers in Acts.
Now, I don’t like using chance and probability and %’s with GOD because Psalm 119:90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations…There are NO probabilites with GOD, HIS Will for HIS Word is forever established in heaven, Psalm 119:89.
But when men (people like the Pimps) refuse to
die to themselves, and take up their cross daily…they made the choice and because of sin and choosing wrong…sin will blind you…that’s why Israel became blinded because they chose to reject CHRIST as a whole, and because of their choice GOD gave the kingdom to another…the Gentiles and this is conditional until the fulness of the Gentiles.
Think about every major sin we have ever committed before and after CHRIST came into our lives…we knew(ADMIT it) what we we were going to do before we did the actual act. Someone of us ignored the conviction of our consciences(the Spirit of GOD in us) and fell hook line and sinker for the temptation. I am very wary of using chosen and elected especially with the “Pimpery” going on these days…Pimps actually believe they are entitled to a kingdom here on earth? A Half-truth is still not the truth! So I compromise in the love of GOD to the predestination/elected/chosen group but every human being is accountable for his or her choices. We are not puppets on a string. Can we agree with that? Amen.
Enochwalked, Agreed brother!
Great comment, I wish that I could articulate the way that you do, but on the other hand, I’m given all things pertaining to life and godliness thru His Word. That suffices.
I choose not to venture off into the fights of The Calvinist or The Arminians, for this reminds me of the Scribes, Pharisees or Saducees of Jesus’s day of His earthly ministry.
I just like the thought provoking dialogue that goes on, while knowing that God is Sovereign no matter what others may believe!
Calvinism does not equal Calvin worship.
Too many Arminians already jumped the gun and started bashing Calvin instead of addressing the issue. So Let me clarify. When I say Calvinism I mean predestination and election I am not speaking of the man. So please put away YOUR strawman and stick to biblical principles regarding Election and Predestination. Leave the man Calvin out of this.
Kyle
I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
- C. H. Spurgeon
I have often wrestled with two Biblical supported doctrines; free will - there was a tree in the garden; and God’s complete and utter sovereignty. It’s nice to know Spurgeon did as well, and he explains it quite masterfully.
Great post Mark. Not differing with the great man but the doctrines of grace is the cement that holds up the wall, Calvinism is the “underlying truth” I certainly chose Christ but I could only do so because He acted first by His Spirit and promised that His sheep would hear His voice and not follow another.
Spurgeon is on point! You can apply that excerpt to many more non-essential doctrinal debates.
Can Sovereingty contain free will or choices with consequences??
I offer a passage of scripture that may deal with the issue………….. Please note Verses 6&7.
Abraham and Abimelech
20:1 From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.” 6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. 7 Now then, return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.”
ditto. i agree with this quote by spurgeon and he articulated my sentiments well, therefore, i’m not choosing sides and no one can make me! (yes, my arms are folded across my chest and my bottom lip is poked out).
lol@ melville- kylsie. where ever did you get that name from?
Mav,
You know who gave me that name. I think it’s someone with their arms folded across their chest and their bottom lip poked out.
Kyle
To All You Free Will Arminians,
Here is a link to a website replete with scripture verses pertaining to Election. I would like all who have questioned this truth to please read the verses and post a reply. In fact, after you read these verses I would like for you to provide your Free Will Verses. It should be easy because there are only a few. Once you do this I will be more than happy to pick them apart also and show you that they too pertain to the elect.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/predestination/verses_concerning_predestination.htm
Kyle
Hello, Kyle:
Thank you for the link, sir; I have “bookmarked” it into a separate folder.
This is rich.
Peter.
This whole argument has logic gaps the size of moon craters. What connection do you make in your opening syllogism, sir? How do you go from talking (ill-advisedly I might add) about the probability of a coin toss to refuting arminianism? You make no middle term to the connect these two things, you could have just as easily left out the entire coin flip rant and made your point, the two events are as unrelated as you and I. Secondly, your whole use of probability is a sham! How do you come up with the idea that God is in the Armenian view only 99.9999% likely to save someone? I hope it is not by tossing a coin! You have no basis for appealing to this number and if it is by some boolean logic that you are trying to arrive at this conclusion you must remember that independent sets can still share all the same variables, meaning that an Armenian can count for as many saved souls as a calvinist can. Next, let us grant that you are right about this “statistical analysis” you also make this point: Arminianism allows for God to make his sacrifice in vain because everyone might choose not to accept his sacrifice, god is Soverign (has total power), therefore Aminianism fails because God could not be restricted by man and still be soverign. But consider this about calvinism, if God had predestined to save somebody, but then wanted to not save them, he couldn’t overturn his power or change his mind (as he does wit Moses), and so his soverignity would also be limited by his predetermined authority (going by your definition of soverignity which I say is also wrong). Furthermore, calvinism also restricts his power in that he cannot create a being for whom he can give free will to, that will come to know him for the purpose of salvation, without already having them predestined. So that argument doesn’t work either. Furthermore, what do you make of Arminius’s claim that “God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith.” Do you really think that an Arminian believes Christ does not pursue others, and that engrafted is used as a weak term? Finally, I take issue with your interpretation of Jesus saying “It is finished”. What if every single person did decide to reject Jesus, how would that make the whole bible a lie? Jesus would still have fulfilled the old testament and he would have completed the work he was sent to do. “It is finished” isn’t solely a knowledge claim, it is also an actual event. Anyway, those are my points, and I hope that if you respond you carefully consider the logic of your arguments, as this argument was severly fallacious.
JJones,
Your rant was replete with emptiness. It’s pretty simple Bro. You either accept Jesus (Heads) or you don’t(Tails). Right? If it is up to man to accept him and NOT God therefore God could not have known if anyone would accept Jesus. This is so simple. So in actuality there was a possibility that no one would accept him thus Christ died in vain. Still pretty simple. Also, if Christ pursues as you say then by your own admission it is God who chooses. So far your petty rant is easily refuted. Let me go even farther. Did Pharaoh have the option of salvation? Could Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus decide not to “follow” Christ? JJones I love when people come here on PP.org and try to defend themselves with long diatribes filled with nothing but long winded emptiness. Therefore answer the questions like an adult and refute my response.
Kyle
Kyle
This is my last try; I tried very hard years ago on “puppies are so cute”. The argument is not about strawmen, which yours is definately a strawman, and I guess not about all the acts of Calvin himself. (which is disappoiting that none of you guys will even answer, since this IS pulpit pimps, and what was Calvin if not a forerunner of a pimp?)
(MN: You still haven’t explained why the argument is a strawman. And as Kyle rightly pointed out, the argument isn’t about Calvin. It’s about God and His sovereignty - or lack there of. And so far, you’ve not addressed the argument - just as you didn’t in Puppies Are So Cute.” The crux of the issue is this: What makes one man choose God’s offer and the other man refuse the exact same offer? )
It’s not about how long you are going to demagogue when points are scored against your flawed argument (not Calvinism as a whole, just the “fuzzy math”) It’s about whether or not a person has any choice regarding their salvation. Plain and simple. We believe they do, and you believe they don’t. Why don’t you stop letting emotions get in the way, (look how many times you have commented, to defend your post) and answer 3 more questions. I will read the answers, but will go back into hibernation, since this is not getting anywhere, and after all, this is a website with a purpose, and there is some “fresh fire” burning from Todd Bentley, and much other news:
1) Why does the issue of Calvin being a murderer go unchecked? (MN: Actually, it didn’t go unchecked. It was addressed by GaryV the first time the accusation was presented. You should go back and read it. )
2) Is God responsible for sin and death? (MN: The answer to that question is a part of the entire issue of Free Will versus God’s sovereignty - The Bible makes it clear that I am responsible for my sin, yet I do nothing apart from what God wants me to do. )
3) If we don’t have ANY choice in the matter, why do you ask the question “you either accept Jesus, or you don’t” -how do you “accept” Jesus if you don’t need to and He accepted you? (MN: He was presenting the results of an Arminian system. Within Arminianianism, since God plays no part in it, when He offers you salvation, you either accept (heads) or you reject (tails). And God has nothing to do with it since it is only a matter of you exercising your free will - as defined and constrained by the Arminian system. ) Why does this go on and on? We are not moving, and you are not moving. (MN: No one is asking you to move, just address the issue without repeating your usual arguments. ) I am just asking to stop with all the insinuation that Arminians are somehow stupid. (MN: Not insinuating that they are stupid. Just not thinking the position all the way through. ) I am ready to move on…..
Melvin,
Thanks for backing me up on this one. If Rev_AK is really a Reverend he is not doing his job when a fellow Christian is asking specific questions. In fact, instead of answering my questions he turns around and asks me three questions. I never could understand the run around of the Arminian. No straight answers to this question.
Kyle
See, this is what I mean:
“if rev_ak is really a reverend…”
Kyle, if I am not mistaken, I have been here on this site before you appeared. When I came here, I was struggling with leaving the Assemblies of God, and now I am very happy, and fully ordained, in a new denomination. My point of view has changed over the years; to give you an example, when I first heard of the book Contuerfeit Revival, I said regarding Kenneth Copeland, “touch not God’s annointed…”That was 12 years or so ago. I just want to warn you not to be so smug in many of your assertions. After studying to show yourself approved you may find one or two errors in your vastly superior doctrine over time. None of us have a monopoly on perfect understanding of scripture. And that includes you. I have been studying the differences between these two philosophies for half of my life. I do lean heavily to the Arminian side, but nothing that has been articulated on here has influenced me. Now, after all I’ve been through, I don’t appreciate beign impugned, I am here for the discussion, and the freindly banter. ( If I was REALLY offended, I would ask you how many souls you have led to Christ, or how many hours have you sacrificed for people who call you Sunday morning and say the weather is “too nice” for church. How many people have left your church for the friendly neighborhood mega church because they have better “programs”) So, let’s keep it above the belt, huh?
John 3:16 and Free Will,
This scripture verse is the so-called Achilles heal of Calvinism. However we must remember context. So lets look at this verse.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Oooops! Looks like pre-destination is a lie. Or is it?
Further down in John we read this.
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
I know your still not convinced. You are saying your HIS sheep because WE choose to be. Oh really!
What about this in John.
John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Context people.
Kyle
MJ, this is a very thought provoking post and one subject that I too have “wrestled with”. First, let me say that I have not come the point where I can not definitive say that I am whole-heartedly convinced that Calvin or Arminius were 100% accurate in their doctrines. Specifically, I have issues with the “predestination” of Calvinism and the “salvation can be lost” of Armenianism.
The predestination idea over and against the idea of free-will must be reconciled with the events that occurred in the Garden of Eden (read Adam and Eve acting of their own free will in the Garden) and throughout the history of Israel in the OT.
Along with that, I keep asking myself the question, “How can God leave man an excuse for Judgment Day?” Meaning, if predestination is the case, then we can not be accountable for our actions and God would be an “unjust” God to condemn anyone. As I continue to study the idea of predestination it seems to only apply to those who are in Christ Jesus. In other words, when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior (after He makes the offer through whatever method He has chosen to draw us), then we are certainly predestined.
Now, the idea of losing our salvation is another of those ideas that would have to reconciled with The Scriptures which tell us “none can be snatched from the hand of God”, John 10:28, 29. And so, one the one hand I agree with some of of the tenets of Calvinism and on the other, some of the tenets of Arminianism.
Addressing some of the comments of the post, the statement
I have a question hopefully someone can answer. Does following this logic all the way out lead to double pre-destination? In other words does the fact that God has chosen some to go to heaven. Does that mean by default He has chosen the rest to go to hell. I struggle with this and would appreciate any clarity someone might bring to the issue.
(MN: First thing: All are worthy only of hell. If we all ended up there, God would be completely just in His actions. His graciousness is shown in that He has chosen us, pulling us from the very flames of hell. And He did so not because of ANYTHING in me but purely because of His love for me, a totally unwarranted love.
An analogy (and only an analogy) might be you walking into a dog pound and selecting a puppy and leaving the rest behind to be put down (for you people at Oral Roberts University, that means gassed and killed).
Without His grace, all would end up in hell. Why did He choose me? I don’t know. I’m wasn’t any smarter than other folks, I didn’t listen any better, I wasn’t trying any harder. There is nothing to differentiate me from the man who rejected God gracious gift, died, and opened his eyes in torment. I will ask him when I see Him. )
Why don’t you ask him now?
When we (the elect) get to heaven we’ll all have a nice cold beer and laugh.
I Know, not believe, that God’s Word (Truth) teach us His grace is offered to the world (all people) - theologically speaking and Theology is important Kyle; God does not predestine folks to Hell - and yes, I am of the Elect and I have been graced with that Knowledge via God’s word and by those with the intestinal fortitude to speak it among blood hungry wolves disguised as sheep.
Blessings Melvin - and keep doing what you do, using your God given gifts toward’s His glory and not our own brother.
Mark,
Are you serious when you said, “God does not predestine folks to Hell”.
John 12:39-40
Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Who is the HE who blinded them?
Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Who is doing what?
Romans 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Romans 11:7
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Mark I have no clue where you get your info from. Please address the above scripture verses.
Kyle
are you serious??? i think Kyle is actually in agreement with me that God does predestine folks for destruction (Proverbs 16:4). of course, i ain’t denying that they deserve it; they do. but as with everything else God controls even the evil of unbelievers (Psalm 105:25). so, together with Kyle, i affirm double predestination. or should be a calvinist with regards to salvation, and an arminian with regards to damnation? no, i affirm God’s sovereignty over damnation also.
Bretheren, I agree that it seems crazy the idea of predestination. I also agree that it seems free-will has got to be the answer at times. But we must do two things (or not) 1: we have to keep to what the scripture says in context (exegesis) and 2: we have to allow God to be God (not that we really have a choice otherwise).
Eph 1:4-According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
—-God has chosen His own before the foundation of the world. If He had chosen all of the world, He would have said so. But here Paul is directly speaking of and to the saints (specifically at Ephesus- but we also see elsewhere where WE are included in the beloved). Anyhow, God chose us BEFORE the world was formed, before we were born. Do you think that Jeremiah decided to to be the preacher he was, or was God who choose for him when He said, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Doyou think the Lord was hoping Jeremiah would choose to be holy or did HE (God) pre-ordain it?
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
— God choose us in Himself before we came about. He chose and called us into His adoption for His own express pleasure.
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
—As MJ politely stated, there is nothing that we do in ourselves that makes us acceptable in God’s sight, our salvation is solely based upon His grace- by which we are made acceptable before Him.
Now the reasonable question is “Since we are chosen for salvation, are others chosen for hell?” To that I say God is God and He can do as He pleases. Shall the pot say to the potter ‘why hast thow made me thus?’ Furhtermore, if people had the chance to choose, do you think they really would? Since we cannot answer these questions, we MUST rely on the wisdom, truth and mercies of God. MAybe He will explain Himself one day, maybe He won’t, but for sure is right now. Now is the acceptable time of the Lord. If we believe He is God then predestination or not we need to witness the the Word of Truth to the world and proclaim the Good News, what the people do with it is between them and God. Amen
Kyle,
Do you know anyone with John or Paul’s Apostolic authority today? I don’t - hence the neccessity of exposing Pulpit Pimps - eh? Context indeed! Come on bro - Hell is for all who know Christ (Truth) and reject Him (Truth), and all know Christ - for it is written on every man’s heart, no?
(MN: So the question remains - why do some accept the Truth and others reject the very same Truth? )
Mark,
What’s your point about Paul’s apostolic authority? This is mutually exclusive from the topic. Did he (Paul) accept Jesus or did God choose him? God IS NOT a respecter of persons so you better answer wisely. God Chose Paul because that is HIS Sovereign will to do so. You Arminians never answer questions you just go off into other areas to try and run from the questions.
Kyle
MN - perhaps because God did indeed grant us the freedom (albeit limited and tied to His Sov.) to choose or reject Him.
People: If you were to view “time” as a measured part of eternity and lay time out from one end (day one) and the other end being the rapture of the Church, on that same continuum, you would see both God’s articulated statements about he choosing us and not him and also the statement…whosoever will, I will not cast out. Both are the same. They run parallel to each other and do not conflict or cross the plane of the other. One is seem from our vantage point and the other is seen from eternity.
There is no such thing, except as we have created it and fed it, as Calvinism and Arminism. They are only speaking points of doctrine based upon man’s faulty interpretation of scripture. Freewill fills in the missing gaps. You can accept the gift or your can reject the gift. Both have consequences. We are not being graded on our working knowledge of either system of debate but we are graded on the Cross! It is an open book test (the Bible) and it is pass-fail. There is even a tutor called the Holy Spirit that will lead and guide us into all truth and we have our life times to take the test (walking in righteousness). So, what is the end of all of this? Love the Lord, walk in servanthood and enjoy your earthly side of salvation knowing that you are redeemed and bound for glory.
Can I get a witness!! Go ahead Melvin…you can shout on this one!
Melvin, i’m probably doing too much (please let me know if i am). brother Lafe, if you can accept the gift, why does Jesus say that “no man can come to (i.e. believe in) me (John 6:44)?” if faith is a gift that God gives (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65), then how does man possess the ability to accept the gift?
To: Sovereign Grace Preacha: Man accepts the ability to accept the gift due to his free will…which we all have. We are not automatons walking around in a netherworld of
“am I saved” or “am I unsaved”. This is a know so salvation experience kept by the power of God and sealed for the day of redemption. People..we have a part to play in this unfolding drama. Did God raise the stick in Moses arm so as to par the sea? No…Moses raised it. He had a choice. Could Paul not go on his three missionary journeys? Yes.
(MN: Again I ask: Why did I accept the work done by Jesus and the guy next to me reject it? What was there about ME that caused ME to accept rather than reject? What was there about HIM that caused HIM to reject? I’ve asked this question a couple of times and so far no Arminian has answered it. It’s really easy to answer. You start with “I accepted the work that Jesus did because —–. Then you say “The fellow next to me rejected the work that Jesus did because —–. Oh, by the way, make sure that your answer doesn’t differentiate between you and your relationship with the Father and the guy next to you and his relationship with the Father. )
He had a choice. He chose obedience. Quit making it sound as if when we have choices we have somehow confounded God or usurped his authority. (MN: Using Paul and his missionary trips is not a valid comparison. After salvation we want to obey God. Prior to salvation - we don’t want to. Paul was saved. He wanted to obey. ) Just because God knew the choice you had and the results of it does not mean it was pre-determined. Fore knowledge of a prior event by God does not mean you are limited in your choice.
I don’t understand a few things, so please bear with me…
First, isn’t it made clear in the Scriptures that we are to use our words to build others up? Why, then, do you welcome the comments of other just to “pick them apart”? I thought that fighting with our brothers was not contigent with building the body of Christ up.
Second, if it is a sure thing that I am saved, that I have come to knowledge of Jesus Christ by His election alone, then why are there so many warnings against falling away? Against turning to another doctrine? Did not Jesus warn the churches in Revelation to repent or He would remove their lampstands?
Now, on the same token I realize that He has said “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” And in another place it is said “He will not let your foot slip. He who watches over you will never slumber.” Paul said that it is before our master that each servant will stand or fall, and that he/she will stand because God is able to make him stand. So I can understand that God is active in our lives and, if we have turned to Him, will not let us fall. Like Jesus said, no one can snatch us out of God’s hand.
So what if I, having the knowledge of Christ and being sure of my election, commit suicide so as to escape this sinful life and be united with my Lord? Or what if I decide to retire to an isolated spot and end my days away from other people?
Someone mentioned, and rightly so, Jesus’ words “You did not choose me, but I chose you…” So, then, there is an election; a calling from God on our souls. But in the same passage (it is my favorite in Scripture) He says to “remain” in His love. If we obey His commands then we remain in His love.
But what if we don’t remain in His love? I’m not saying that we can do anything that would cause Him to turn us away, for He Himself has said that He would never turn anyone away who came to Him. What I am asking is what happens if we have recieved this election and choose to, on the basis of this election, not follow in His ways? Is the Calvinistic answer to this (and I’m speaking of Calvinism, not Calvin himself) that a true Christian would not fail to follow Christ’s words? Again, please help me to understand, for I have knowledge in neither of the arguments, only in what Scripture says.
For if someone is called by God to salvation and only recieves it thus, then why did God go to such painstaking efforts to move in us to follow His word? To repent of our sins?
It seems to me that both the Arminian and Calvinistic view points don’t take into account something that seems very prevelant in Scriptures but is often overlooked, for God has always desired a relationship with His people. It isn’t a “God has done it so it is finished” or a “God provided but it’s up to you” deal. Scripture clearly states that we have not yet recieved our salvation. Not in the sense that I think we are supposed to understand it. For we have, in a way, two redemptions: The redemption of our souls from slavery to sin and the redemption of our bodies to eternity at the second coming of our Lord.
So on the one hand, God himself has provided forgiveness of sins so we can walk with Him in this life, and in the next. On the other hand, we have to walk in that life. The reason Christ suffered so was that we would repent of our sins. That means that, while we don’t have to do anything to merit our salvation, God wants us to actively seek Him and to become more like Him. And more than that, He is active in that process, even to the point of providing the good works in our lives we are supposed to do!
I am reminded of the parable of the Wedding Banquet. Please, tell me what that parable means to you.
Thirdly, I’m not sure I want salvation if I can’t choose it. From my own meager experiences, God is too great a God, too loving and kind, generous and faithful, for me to not be able to choose Him. And I’m not convinced He would want my love if it weren’t real; if He had programmed that love into me. I would be a robot, then, unable to truly love someone because I had never had the chance to choose Him over everything else.
I don’t think this takes anything away from God. If anything, it gives Him much more character and shows His love for us in an even greater light; that He would lay aside some of His power and influence and give us the choice of loving Him. What was it Moses said? “Today I set before you Life and Death, Blessings and a Curse. Choose Life…”
I don’t think we can “lose” our salvation, because that is contrary to Scripture. BUT I think He wants us to actively pursue Him. And I think it’s evident that He has always been actively pursuing us…
(MN: If I may, let me ask a question. Do you really think, given your fallen state prior to salvation, that you would WANT salvation, that you would choose it on your own? Don’t confuse God making you choose something you don’t want with God changing your heart to a heart of flesh so you will want it. It is that changing of the heart from stone to flesh that best represents God sovereign act in our lives. If He doesn’t change my heart, I don’t decide for Him. He decides whose heart He will change and whose heart He will not change. Once the heart is changed, accepting the gift is 100% guaranteed.
Second question: If a changed heart is the determiner of me accepting Christ, and I can’t change my own heart, and given that once my heart is changed I am guaranteed to accept Jesus Christ, on what basis does God change my heart?
Kyle can deal with the rest of the questions (quite good questions, by the way), since this is his posting. )
Kyle,
(I’m very sorry to review but your last comment requires it) [Dear Readers you may skip this part for kyle]
I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “refute my response”, but I gave you a whole list of responses that I thought would suggest that I was “refuting you like an adult”, but of course for a philosopher like your self I am sure my own words carry no meaning. So I will try once again to make my points so that you can even comprehend them.
Point 1.) You say “Under this supposition, the sovereignty of God which is not 100% but only 99.9999 - - fill in the number of nines you want - - certain. ”
I reply “You have no basis for appealing to this number and if it is by some boolean logic that you are trying to arrive at this conclusion you must remember that independent sets can still share all the same variables, meaning that an Armenian can count for as many saved souls as a calvinist can.” Or in laments terms you could go all the way to 100%
Now what is your adult point to this argument.
Point 2.) You say”By definition the God of Arminianism fails to meet the definition of Sovereign…. He (God) is described as being omnipotent, or having unlimited power. By the free will doctrine God fails to meet the standard applied to Him. He could not have unlimited power but rather is limited in his power because…”
I replied “But consider this about calvinism, if God had predestined to save somebody, but then wanted to not save them, he couldn’t overturn his power or change his mind (as he does wit Moses), and so his soverignity would also be limited by his predetermined authority (going by your definition of soverignity which I say is also wrong).”
In other words you don’t solve the problem you pretend to solve. Now what is your reply to this point?
Point 3.) You Said, ” Afterall, it’s possible that everyone, in exercising their free will, may reject the work done by Jesus Christ. Because of this at the moment of death after Christ said, “it is finished” He could not state with 100% certainty that His work on the cross saved ANYBODY. There is the slimmest of slim possibilities that he died in vain and the whole Bible from Genesis on would be a lie.”
I replied, “I take issue with your interpretation of Jesus saying “It is finished”. What if every single person did decide to reject Jesus, how would that make the whole bible a lie? Jesus would still have fulfilled the old testament and he would have completed the work he was sent to do. “It is finished” isn’t solely a knowledge claim, it is also an actual event.”
Now what is your response to this point?
FOR INFIDELS LIKE MYSELF BEGIN READING HERE!!!
Now you have as of yet failed to respond to these points Kyle, which I will very much enjoy hearing you refute, but as most young apologist are in the habit of doing, you have tacked more arguments as a way of trying to refute my own, all of your rhetoric aside, which you seem to need some training with as well. I will keep this simple and I apologize to all the non-philosophers whose intellect is not to kyle’s unfailing standard.
Point 1.) I did not say that I believe Christ pursues, I gave a quote from Arminius, whom like Calvin I doubt you have ever read. However, I do believe that Christ pursues individuals (he knocks on the door so to speak) and this does not mean he chooses them in the calvinist version of the sense of choose, this means he ministers through the spirit to others. If you can’t make this distinction, as I imagine you may not be able to with your philosophical brillance, then consider how a marriage works, both partners have free will, but both choose to be with each other ( I mean an american marriage of course).
Point 2.) Of course Paul could have rejected Jesus on the road to Damascus. Plato says in the Phaedrus that a philosopher is so embibed with love that he cannot help but pursue what is Good. I imagine that this too is the calling that Paul has in his life, he realizes that he cannot hide from the truth, and he comes to realize what the truth is, and that compels him to be someone different. As for Pharoah, he could have at any time decided to be someone different, but God hardened his heart because he choose in spite of seeing God to do what he wanted to do instead.
Point 3.) You said, “It’s pretty simple Bro. You either accept Jesus (Heads) or you don’t(Tails). Right? If it is up to man to accept him and NOT God therefore God could not have known if anyone would accept Jesus.”
How do you know that God doesn’t know an outcome even though he may not choose it? If I have Kobe Bryant play against a three year old, I will not choose the outcome, but I know who will win that game. Also, since men do not choose God in your opinion, is there any significance to Joshua saying that his household would follow God all the days of his life? If God, the celestial dictator, predetermines everyone’s life, why does his heart break when we fall, is this because he is a sadist and enjoys paining himself with our predistened fate? There are a row of endless questions I could add but that should do.
Now finally, with my long-winded words, I was wondering just one more thing about your personal beliefs Kyle, do you, as a calvinist agree that “for freedom christ has set us free, stand fast therefore, and do not submit to the yoke of slavery.”
Hello everyone, and especially you Melvin and Kyle. I think that this is a great subject to discuss, because it deals with an area of our intellect that we cannot register. That being the Divine Soverignty and human responsibility. With us there is contradiction, but with God they are friends. Melvin, I see in the bible that God looks upon all of mankind as a pile of dead, rotten, stinking bodies all deserving eternal damnation. Of His own choosing, He bring’s back to life a great number that no man can number( Grace) which cannot be demanded. The rest He gives what we all deserve ( Judgement) all to His glory. I will rest upon the promises of scripture alone, even though I cannot understand His counsel. In closing this comment, I used to have a problem with ” Esau I hated” but when we are put alongside the Holiness of God, we should have a problem with ” Jacob I loved”. Thank’s Kyle for the post and the stimulating responses it’s gotten.
Given my prior state to Salvation, yes, I think I would very much like a saviour. I suppose you are saying that since my heart is utterly sinful I wouldn’t be able to understand what sin is and thereby would not understand my need for a Saviour.
(MN: According to the Bible, Romans 5:10 and others, you did not want salvation prior to salvation. You were an enemy of God wanting nothing to do with Him. Romans 6 says you were dead to God and a slave to sin. Prior to salvation, you did not want to be saved. You did not want anything to do with God. )
The thing that Scriptures tell me about this condition are these: That the Law of Moses was given to reveal what sin really is, or as my translation of the Bible says “that sin might be recognized as utterly sinful”. This law was given to man for that reason, but as Romans points out there are other things, natural things planted in the world around us, that are supposed to show us that the things we do are wrong. We are “without excuse”.
The second thing is that Christ suffered and died the most horrible death so that my heart would be broken by witnessing the penalty of my sins. So yes, I agree that it took God’s effort and ONLY God’s effort to break my heart, but just because something breaks my heart not does not mean it will later. What I mean is this: some days I am in awe of God’s gift, but other days I just don’t care. Hard as I might try, I can’t always feel the pity and remorse over my sins and Christ’s sufferings. I say all this to bring another point; I’ve seen and heard of many Christians, many dear brothers and sisters who have devoted themselves fully to the Glory of God, who have “fallen”. They took a wrong turn. They made some major mistakes in their lives. Many turned away from the faith, or lost it due to circumstances in their lives or various other things. Many turned, they repented and were restored. Many did not. But ALL had that chance.
I guess what I’m asking in this post is why is there such a warning in the Scriptures about falling away, why are there so many callings to persevere, to abide in Christ, if what I do has absolutely nothing to do with salvation?
(MN: Short answer: Perseverance is a demonstration of Salvation, a result of salvation - not the key to salvation or the cause of salvation. )
As my friend has said, I don’t consider myself in any camp. In fact, I think that both views hold serious flaws that must be reconciled.
Kyle,
I responded to your comment to me yesterday but it never posted, or I didn’t hit the post button, either way I’m truly sorry for my words are not as with me today as they were yesterday, but I still wanted to make some points, so if my post comes up today disregard this. The gist of what I said in my unposted remarks was that I did specifically refute three of your main points which you never responded to me about and instead went on to construct more arguments to appear as if you were serious in discussing this with me. Which if you are then let’s talk about it. My three points in my original post were (which I would like to hear you respond to):
1.) That you assigned an arbitrary mathematics to the 99.99999%. You have no basis for this number it could just as easily be 100%. I actually get your point with the heads and tails it’s how you figure out the 99.999% that I question. And if you want to discuss set theory, game theory, or nash equilibriums about this matter I am willing to divulge all I know (which I imagine you believe is not that much, so time will not be an issue in you belief system).
Point 2.) Your notion of God’s ultimate power is as much a failure (equal to or greater than) as the position you are trying to weaken (free will) because God is limited in power through predestination by his own predetermined authority so that he cannot change his mind (which with Moses he does), because this would breach his will. Thus he is not all powerful by a Calvinist view either. There are several more problems like this one that I could give you if you believe in the medieval version of an all power, all knowing, all XYZ God.
3.) My third point was that you misused the phrase “it is finished” as a knowledge claim instead of a significant event. For instance if I shot someone and said “I have shot Mr. X” that would be a knowledge claim but my proclamation would better be understood as an event, and as an event Jesus saying “it is finished” fulfills the old testament, making it valid regardless if anyone accepts Jesus as Lord of their life.
Now if you would be kind enough to respond to those points I wil be more than willing to discuss this topic even further with you.
Now as to the points that you opened up I will respond to each one in turn. You said “If it is up to man to accept him and NOT God therefore God could not have known if anyone would accept Jesus.” God could know something without having to direct authority over it. If kobe bryant and a three year old play a game of basketball I know who will win that game, but that doesn’t mean that I have restricted their freedom.
“Also, if Christ pursues as you say then by your own admission it is God who chooses.” I want to clarify that the quote is not mine but Arminius’s. However I defend the fact that Christ pursues and does not choose. I compare it to a marriage, which I believe there is a good biblical basis for. Two people in an american marriage choose each other. One may pursue for awhile while the other ignores them, but that doesn’t mean that if they get hitched that the other chose it, rather by both of them choosing they become married. So Christ pursues us and we accept his gift of grace.
“Did Pharaoh have the option of salvation? Could Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus decide not to “follow” Christ?” Of course pharaoh had the option of salvation (although different in those days). He chose to reject God after seeing with his own eyes God work against him, and he still decided to reject God, that is why his heart was hardened. We must remember that God is the author both of natural laws and their consequences, and moral laws and their consequences as well. With regard to Paul, I believe that he could have rejected christ as well, and I don’t really understand the point that you are trying to make with him beyond that. Christ gives some people a very big hello and in that moment they decide whether or not to follow God, Paul followed God pharoah did not.
Now to close I have some more points of my own to add so here they are: Why does God feel pain when his people don’t follow him? It seems the work of a masochist to create something that must reject the creator and then to feel badly about it, in fact I think that is probably masochism in the first degree. Do you Kyla as a calvinist/christian believe that for freedom christ has set us free so that we do not again have to submit to the yoke of slavery which is sin?
I do hate to simply barge in like this, but in this last line here I think you are on dangerous ground orthodoxy wise. Whether you are an Arminian or a Calvinist we have to declare that God foreknew His people would cause Him some emotional anguish (whatever that means for an infinite being).
If we say, however, that God did not know His creatures would cause Him such pain, we relegate Him to not being all-knowing. So, whether the Arminian or Calvinist is right we would have to assume that God foreknew His people would “cause Him pain”.
I would have to say that my favorite verses whenever this conversation comes up is Romans 8:7-8, which states that natural man: 1. Cannot please God, 2. Does not want to please God, 3. Is hostile towards God. After pointing this out I normally ask: Where in that do you see “Me” choosing “Him”? If this is my natural bent before a here such and such sermon, but after I hear it I desire greatly to run to God in repentance, what accounts for that: A. My freely choosing God against my nature or, B. God freely, before the foundation of the World, choosing me?
Hey! I think it is good to hear someone else put into the debate, so keep posting, but I disagree with you in two ways. First, I’m not making the point that God didn’t know beforehand that he would be rejected, I am very sure he did. What I am saying is that under a Calvinist interpretation God creates beings, he makes them submit to his will, his will is to be rejected by a majority of the things he creates, he feels great pain because of this. That is what a Calvinist must deal with, and I think that if you agree with that it makes your God a masochist, which mine is not because he allows free will. The main difference is not foreknowledge it is the actual willing, God willing to force people to reject him. Secondly, orthodox theology doesn’t require an all knowing God instead it requires a God whose knowledge is so much greater than our own that it transcends the possibility of explanation. If you for instance believe that God is all knowing, and all powerful you meet a contradiction because then God couldn’t have the power to remain ignorant of something. An all knowing God, in the sense that we use the term, is a point that begins in the middle ages, at least for theology, or at least when it becomes significant. And before you whip out your verses that pretend otherwise let me just give you a few of my own, Jer 19:5 and Jer 32:35 and do not forget that Jesus himself did not know whether or not the fig would give him something. As far as the choosing part goes I again fall back on my marriage model and I point you towards the TNT of the bible Romans 10:9-10 “if you profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.” I don’t know what is more of a choice then that, of course the deafeator argument is to say that a person is a droid of some sorts, but then why the verse in the first place? And once again my point is that both choose each other, God offers us salvation and we accept or decline. Cheers!
Jjones,
If God is not all knowing, He wouldn’t know if the Cross would actually accomplish anything, or if Jesus would have really went through with the act of being the sin bearer. If Christ was unsuccessful that means the prophecies of Him would have been false, that means that the Holy Spirit is a liar and God doesn’t know what the heck is going on in the world. Your position strips God of all his divine attributes which are:
1. Ominiscient
2. Omnipotent
3. Omnipresent
4. Immutable
5. Eternal.
You my friend are treading in very dangerous waters and none of the historical Arminans nor contemproary ones agree with your assesment you may want to start with the works of Roger Olsen. So as long as God is one step in front of us He is good to go? But one step behind Omniscient? Eeeeh! Does anyone agree with this brother?
Lionel,
Thank you so much for your reply, though of course I disagree. I think that you and I probably agree about everything that God is and we would probably have no problem with how each other thought God could handle something, our disagreement is strictly to the degree of which God is X. I believe that God is Eternal, no doubt. I believe GOd is immutable, no doubt. I believe God is omnipotent (depending on what we mean specifically by this, but I don’t think we would disagree with any of God’s powers). I think God’s omnipresence is due to his power and his great knowledge, but it is not a significant point to me, and I would agree with anyone that he was and probably disagree with someone that said he wasn’t. So we only disagree with the all-knowing aspect. Now think for a moment the rigorous requirement for all knowing. That a single fact cannot be unknown. NOw it seems obvious by the scripture I gave and by several of Jesus’s life (angel’s ministering to him, the fig, etc.) that he used the power to not know some things. Does this mean then he couldn’t know the things you say he needed to know, of course not! God could still have great knowledge and know everything that he said he knew and still not know everything. We have the possibility for infinite knowledge, but we are limited to knowledge by the dimensions we exist in, and the capacity for our minds to function in those dimensions. God also has the possibility of infinite knowledge but he has no restrictions, other than what he may put on himself, and I will even say, which some theologians would probably not agree with, I think he knows all possibilities. But I do not think this means he knows everything. I imagine there are many things for the sake of his goodness he chooses not to know. Now what I beat you are probably thinking of is that no mystery is hidden from him. And the fact is that he can know enough, so that no mystery is not hidden from him, and still choose to not know everything. This said I want to point out the fact that this discussion is not really the central issue in the debate over Calvinism, because an all knowing God can still choose to give people free will, the same way an all knowing God could choose to make everything in the universe submit, the same way a mostly powerful mostly all knowing God could. So this debate should perhaps be done on another post, which I am willing to do, but let’s not divert the issue. My only point in terms of knowledge in the previous point was simply that all the criteria in romans 8, can be met with an almost omniscient God. One final caution I would add is to not worry about who does or does not agree with me, all one needs is the truth, and whoever, even if it is everyone, disagrees with that, is still not right. Cheers and thanks for your reply once again!
With the risk of barging in and sounding rude, could JJones or somebody simplify his main point because man, I’m lost!!
JJones,
If I may, I just wanted to interject a few things, and then I’ll probably go back into hibernation. Just needed some clarification, which I’m sure you will provide. I did not respond to all of your statements, just a few. If you read to the end, you’ll see my purpose for commenting.
“Furthermore, calvinism also restricts his power in that he cannot create a being for whom he can give free will to, that will come to know him for the purpose of salvation, without already having them predestined.”
R4C: To this I would have an issue with your basis for God’s reason for creating mankind. Surely you will find it needful to move past the issue of God’s power being restricted or unlimited on the basis of whether or not he can create human beings who have “free will”. IMHO, this undermines the whole purpose for which God created man. I would contend that the ultimate reason why God created man was for His own glory. This is indeed the case for the creation of both the elect and the non-elect. Many scriptures bear this out, but I’ll only list a few for consideration: Romans 9, Ephesians 1:5-6, Isaiah 48:9-11, Isaiah 43:6-7. I would humbly submit that the argument is not so much of if our will is free, but in essence if God Himself has ordained our very existence. More on this in a moment…
“Finally, I take issue with your interpretation of Jesus saying “It is finished”. What if every single person did decide to reject Jesus, how would that make the whole bible a lie? Jesus would still have fulfilled the old testament and he would have completed the work he was sent to do. “It is finished” isn’t solely a knowledge claim, it is also an actual event.”
R4C: These are interesting points. It appears that you are basing your understanding of Jesus’ statement on the cross primarily upon his fulfillment of old-testament prophecy. I don’t disagree at all, as in the new testament we see the unfolding revelation of fulfilled prophecy in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. My concern comes from a few passages of scripture, namely these. Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8, Phillipians 4:3, Hebrews 12:23. Would you say that Jesus dying on the cross secured the salvation of those whose names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, or would you disagree? If so, what scriptural basis would you use for doing so? Is this not the reason for Jesus emphatically stating the words “it is finished”?
“Point 1.) I did not say that I believe Christ pursues, I gave a quote from Arminius, whom like Calvin I doubt you have ever read. However, I do believe that Christ pursues individuals (he knocks on the door so to speak) and this does not mean he chooses them in the calvinist version of the sense of choose, this means he ministers through the spirit to others. If you can’t make this distinction, as I imagine you may not be able to with your philosophical brillance, then consider how a marriage works, both partners have free will, but both choose to be with each other ( I mean an american marriage of course). “
R4C: Without being philosophical, let’s ask the Groom. “You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in my name He may give to you” John 15:16, NASB.
“Point 2.) Of course Paul could have rejected Jesus on the road to Damascus. Plato says in the Phaedrus that a philosopher is so embibed with love that he cannot help but pursue what is Good. I imagine that this too is the calling that Paul has in his life, he realizes that he cannot hide from the truth, and he comes to realize what the truth is, and that compels him to be someone different.”
R4C: Though I understand your logic, this may be a stretch J. Regarding his conversion, Paul, in his own words, seems to lean toward predestination as well; “But when he who had SET ME APART BEFORE I WAS BORN, and who CALLED ME BY HIS GRACE, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone.” Galatians 1:15-16.
“As for Pharoah, he could have at any time decided to be someone different, but God hardened his heart because he choose in spite of seeing God to do what he wanted to do instead.”
R4C: Okay J, that’s TWO stretches, and we’re not even in the 7th inning yet!!!! (LOL!!!) In actuality, God didn’t harden Pharoah’s heart because of what he saw. It was already God’s intention to harden Pharoah’s heart before the plagues. He had already communicated this to Moses when he gave him the assignment to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. Remember??? “And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.” (Exodus 4:21, ESV)
“If God, the celestial dictator, predetermines everyone’s life, why does his heart break when we fall, is this because he is a sadist and enjoys paining himself with our predistened fate? There are a row of endless questions I could add but that should do.”
R4C: Again, I think that it is important to define the real question. Is it more about what we can or cannot choose, as if the power and authority belongs to us, or is it more about who orchestrates the conditions of the choice? JJ, the question is not, “does a man choose God”. The better question, and one that I would be interested to hear the answer to, is “what causes a man to choose God?”
“…and I think that if you agree with that it makes your God a masochist, which mine is not because he allows free will. The main difference is not foreknowledge it is the actual willing, God willing to force people to reject him. Secondly, orthodox theology doesn’t require an all knowing God instead it requires a God whose knowledge is so much greater than our own that it transcends the possibility of explanation. If you for instance believe that God is all knowing, and all powerful you meet a contradiction because then God couldn’t have the power to remain ignorant of something. An all knowing God, in the sense that we use the term, is a point that begins in the middle ages, at least for theology, or at least when it becomes significant. And before you whip out your verses that pretend otherwise let me just give you a few of my own, Jer 19:5 and Jer 32:35 and do not forget that Jesus himself did not know whether or not the fig would give him something. As far as the choosing part goes I again fall back on my marriage model and I point you towards the TNT of the bible Romans 10:9-10 “if you profess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.” I don’t know what is more of a choice then that, of course the deafeator argument is to say that a person is a droid of some sorts, but then why the verse in the first place? And once again my point is that both choose each other, God offers us salvation and we accept or decline. Cheers!”
R4C:
First to Lionel,
Now, I would assume (and correct me if I’m wrong JJ) that JJ is alluding to what is commonly referred to by Arminius and others as “middle knowledge”. This belief is kind of summed up in the following way: God has three kinds of knowledge, natural, middle and free. Natural knowledge is God’s knowledge of all possible worlds, i.e. all that concerns the necessary and possible in God’s understanding. Free knowledge is God’s knowledge of this actual world. By a “free act,” He is able to know what He knows absolutely. Lastly, middle knowledge states that God cannot know the future free acts of men in the same way He knows other things absolutely. Thus, this middle knowledge is dependent upon the free acts of what men will do. A statement from Arminius himself concerning middle knowledge would be helpful:
“…all things and every thing which now have, will have, have had, can have, or might hypothetically have, any kind of being…. God therefore understands himself: He knows all things possible, whether they be in the capability of God or of the creature; in active or passive capability; in the capability of operation, imagination, or enunciation: He knows all things that could have an existence, on laying down any hypothesis…” (From “Disputations on Some of the Principal Subjects of the Christian Religion” (1610), Disputation IV, “On the Nature of God.” Jacobus Arminius)
JJ, please let me know if this is a misrepresentation of your stance, as I have no intention of constructing the dreaded “strawman”. Question, if God based His acts solely upon the free acts of what men will do, how does this not reduce his sovereignty? As you have stated, there are many more questions I could ask, but I think that one will suffice for now.
In closing JJ, I want to say that I deeply admire your candor and scholarship on this issue. Please keep in mind that many of us, as Lionel has already so eloquently stated, were captured by the doctrines of grace so much so to the point that we wanted to turn our faces away from His divine Glory. I would say to you that one has not truly embraced the Reformed position unless one has wrestled with it in some way. My reasoning is that if it is not something you wrestle with, pray about, diligently study, cry over and agonize about, then it is of no value or worth. The paradox of that statement is this. It was the very love of God that drew me to this, not my idea of Him being “masochistic” in any way. I’m sure that many have the testimony of saying something similar to these words, “Lord, if it be such, then WHY DID YOU CHOOSE ME???” This understanding has introduced most of us to a much richer, more meaningful and passionate relationship with our Savior. To assure you that many of us seek balance and adequate representation, note that we have intently looked into as much of the literature of free will as we have with those who make a case for the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men. In fact, one of the stronger arguments I’ve seen for the case of Armenianism (though I disagree with much of it) comes from this particular site:
http://ochuk.wordpress.com/why-i-am-not-a-calvinist/
As you continue this discussion, what you will find is that though there are some of us who may be a bit more rigid than others in our responses, we are willing to lovingly, prayerfully, insightfully, scripturally and honestly come to the text with all diligence concerning this issue. You may find the debate will be fervent and spicy at times, but always with a view and desire to express biblical truth (I hope and pray). Though I have briefly followed it, I will not be heavily participating in any back and forth discussion with you on this. My intent with the questions are simply to gauge your thought process on some things concerning reformed thought, so I’ll take your responses offline. I will let my good friend Lionel and Kyle “The Young Gun” Andrews graciously contend for monergistic understanding, as I’m convinced that they are much more capable and well equipped to hash out these issues with you than I am. (Note: I suspect that GaryV is somewhere waiting in the wings. If he is, what a guy to have come off the bench. I suppose that Peter and myself could sort of act as moderators. I would make sure nobody hits below the belt, and Peter could provide much needed comedic relief…On second thought, Mel, maybe you should handle that!!!! LOL!!!)
Seriously bro’ (or sis), all I ask is that you (and everyone else involved in the discussion) be perfectly clear in defining the context of the discussion. Instead of throwing around names like “Armenian” and “Calvinist”, let’s deal with the actual doctrines in question, like predestination, sin, atonement, etc,. Most people get so caught up into some of the great thinkers that wrote much of the scholarly work in each camp that they fail to deal with the issues at hand. If you’ll notice, I didn’t mention Calvin in any of my responses to your statements. To give you an illustration as to why I purposely didn’t resort to that, I’m reminded of a young lady who I became aware of by way of the blogosphere. It was a forum similar to this one, and the debate was a hot one, dealing with the very issues we are discussing. After going many rounds with a certain gentleman and doing quite well, the young lady received a hostile response from the gentlemen. Since he really had no response from scripture, he resorted to other means in an attempt to discredit her argument. He stated something to the effect (and I’m paraphrasing) that he was through dealing with the likes of her, because he just couldn’t understand why she was deceived by such men as Calvin, Augustine and Luther, and that their doctrines were straight from hell. The young lady’s response was that she was not familiar with who Calvin was, had not read a word of anything Augustine had written, and only faintly knew Luther to be the guy that caused some trouble by nailing a controversial paper on the door of a catholic church. She went on to say that she came to her conclusions simply from studying the scriptures prayerfully, diligently and intently. She was completely unaware that she had adequately defended the tenets of the Reformed faith with no historical knowledge of the reformers at all. You see, the doctrines have nothing to do with Calvin or any of the reformers. We appreciate their contribution to theological history, but at the same time we realize how sinful they were and how sinful we are. That this young lady could come away with such understanding solely from the scriptures (sola scriptura) alone speaks volumes of the Holy Spirit’s work among His people. So, JJones, sharpen us, challenge us and rigorously present your arguments, but do not be afraid to expect the same.
Semper Reformanda (Always Reforming),
R4C
P.S. Lionel, you gotta stop stealing the words right outta my mouth bro’!!! That’s frustrating!!! (LOL!!!)
Kyle,
I understand and can relate to you bro’. I appreciate your zeal, passion and hunger for truth. Just remember to keep it laced with grace, love and compassion.
Quote of the Day:
“Satan primarily operates in false preachers,
Who don’t know God’s kingdom belongs to floor sweepers.
The world’s system is backwards, like “saw-see” is,
Question for the moment- who has your allegiance?”
(Shai Linne, from the “The Solus Christus Project”)
The Arminian and Calvinist perspectives are greatly flawed in that there is no agreement with scripture as it relates to God reconciling the whole world to Himself through Jesus Christ. I have posted at this site before about Jesus drawing ALL men to Himself (Universal Salvation Through Christ), but Melvin has refused to post my responses to people’s questions of my current understanding. For all real truth seekers, I am in a good blog discussion with some other brethren in Christ that may help to shed some light on this subject.
The link to the blog on blackandreformed’s site is: Black and Reformed .
Jon Paden
I am not saying that God forces people not to choose Him. God does not force people not to choose Him any more than He forces water to be wet or fire to be hot. Such is there nature and rejection of God, without FIRST the work of the Holy Spirit, is our nature.
Scenerio I bring up to people: If my nature is hostility towards God (born that way) why would I choose God? There are several options: 1. Something inside of me (of my doing) works and I freely choose God or 2. Something outside of me (not my own doing) works and I choose God. Now, both of these end up with me repenting, yet the first makes no sense logically or Biblically (which itself is very logical).
Going back to Romans 8:7-8 (which you did not respond to) why, if what Paul says here is ME before CHRIST, why did I come to Christ? My heart is bent against Him, is it not? I do not want Him and indeed I hate Him. My father, the Devil, hates Him and I am in his grips. I would have to, in effect, change my very nature, would I not? Every Arminian argument I have heard has Mr. Smith first changing his mind about God and God responding to that, but that is step two and three. Step one is God regenerating that man, and so on it goes.
Concidentally, this is why “once saved always saved works.” If you believe this than you do not believe in our free will. Either God cuts out our free will before we are saved so that He can save us, or He cuts it out after we are saved, so we cannot walk away. God allows my free will to choose Him, but can I “freely choose” to walk away if I become saved?
the bibled says “whosoever will let him come”, i do not believe calvinism because he was a murderer, he murdered his best friend while he was saved, did he have the free will to preach about God and be a murderer, and arminiansm i never read, i just read the bible, to much intellectual debate about the word of God, men philosiphy and vain reasoning which paul talks against, he said follow after christ, one need to just repent of his sins and trust in jesus, it does not matter how he got to that point what matters is that he made it, grace and peace, i am selahpause.
Selah, do not discount intellectual reasoning, doesn’t the Word itself say, “come let us reason together? Isaiah 1:18″ You read the bible in English no doubt. Who translated it from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Learned men. Grant it, many men who know the scripture are not of God, but a holy discourse is approved. Iron sharpens iron, I know you remember that.
As for Calvin, Monergism goes back to the Bible itself. Calvin didn’t invent it, it wsan’t his to invent. All he did was do what God had ordained for him to do. I don’t excuse what he did in the trial of Servetus, if he is wrong, God will deal with him. But if he was truly saved, then the blood of Christ will make him acceptable before the Lord- even if he did have something to do with it.
I am posting though I said I would not. The reason again may not cause a great deal of popularity but as you know Melvin. I don’t court people’s approval much. LOL!!!
My challenge is to those who embrace the beautiful and liberating Doctrines of Grace. Initially when this doctrine became true to me (for a year or so I fought against it with every fiber of my being even, conviced that this is what the bible taught and I wanted nothing of such a God) I became arrogant. I figured that I had some truth that most didn’t have and I wore it as a badge of honor. I enjoyed using the acronym TULIP and made sure everyone knew I understood it. I left many wounded on the road of theology with this mindset.
What happened was unique. Somehow God in His mercy opened up this Doctrine in a way that caused tears to flow from my face. This Doctrine became practical. As the undeniable work of the Spirit impressed Ephesians 2 on my heart, I was broken. The truth was:
1. God elected me, and I had no right to be accepted.
2. I was totally dead, there was not a flicker of righteousness in me. I was totally dead and it was Grace and Grace alone that snatched me from Hell’s fire.
3. As Paul charged the Corinthians “what do you have that was not given and if was given why do you boast as if it was not” I realized it wasn’t my human reason that opened my eyes to this it was just as my salvation had occured a work of God’s favor for enlightening me.
Because of those three things the way I approached people was differenent. Regardless of their beliefs I understood that if they named the name of Christ it was because they were “born from above”. The Spirit by the electing work of the Father and the redeeming work of the Son had secured there place in eternity and the Spirit simply applied this work to their lives.
I say that to say this. The tone that Kyle exhibits is one of arrogance not patience and grace. The tone of those who agree with them is likewise. I think as we attempt to discuss this truth the tone is very important. When I became a Christian I had not heard of this doctrine, it was as foreign as latin to a newborn. So we must be patient, dillegent, gracious and loving. I think we can debate some things with some tones but I believe this one has to be with full gentleness. Remembering we didn’t come into this truth on our own, but it was the gracious work of the Trinity opening our minds and applying it to our hearts.
(MN: Most new “five pointers” tend to be a little over eager in promoting the doctrine. They usually calm down after a while. As with new converts to Christianity, it seems good to lock them away for a couple of years before loosing them on society, to give them they calm down. Having said that, I’m not going to fuss at Kyle. God has to exercise grace in his life in becoming patient and trusting God to show others the truth exactly as he has to work in the person’s life who rejects the doctrines of Grace. I don’t know how long he has embraced Monergism, but I look at this entire set of exchanges as good training for him.
I will insist though, that text is not always the best way to get an idea of tone. )
Mel,
You said, “I’m not going to fuss at Kyle. God has to exercise grace in his life in becoming patient and trusting God to show others the truth exactly as he has to work in the person’s life who rejects the doctrines of Grace. I don’t know how long he has embraced Monergism, but I look at this entire set of exchanges as good training for him.”
It was actually a process that started right after I was saved. In fact the examples below actually prove the 5 points of Calvinism.
I was not saved in a Church. In fact, I was a teenager driving my car from my place of work to home. Upon going over the bridge which connected the town where I worked to the town where I lived I felt a sudden overwhelming sense of sadness and despair. I began to weep and felt ashamed of myself. Next I asked God to forgive me the best I knew how. Immediately after this I felt as if the whole world was literally taken off my shoulders. My tears turned to Joy and happiness. I was set free from the bondage of sin to the point where I had to get out of my car just to take in the magnitude of what happened.
After I was saved I couldn’t help but tell my ENTIRE family about Jesus and the need for repentance. However, the very ones who loved me began to shun me rather than embrace the message of salvation. I was very very hurt to the point of tears to see my own Mother reject the truth. I was the baby boy of the family so you could imagine how it tore my heart out that my Mom rejected Jesus Christ. It felt as though she was rejecting me.
Soon after my salvation I wound up becoming a member of a Pentecostal Church. I was flying high on Jesus if you will. And yes I too gave to the “building fund” and never questioned the Pastor for he was the “anointed” of God. - Sigh! Not more than a year into my Church membership two profound things happened within the Church. First the Pastor fathered two kids with his secretary and second one of the ministers was a homosexual. I was devastated and not only left the Church but also told God if this is salvation then I don’t want it. I tried to walk away and found myself “trying” to be like the world with “limited” success if you will. In college my life was a wreck on the inside because my conscience was killing me. I couldn’t escape God.
After college I was spiritually wrecked but still could not escape the presence of God. When I was sinning it felt like when a little kid is acting out and the Father has a hold on him. No matter how much you try as a little kid you can’t break your grown Fathers grip. I inevitably gave up and fully surrendered. I needed answers. God provided them. In fact Mel one of the first sites I was lead to was yours. It answered allot of questions regarding my time at the Pentecostal /WoF/Name it-Claim it Church I was at. From there I was led to other sites “surprisingly” all reformed theology nonetheless. This answered my salvation experience as I was not in a Church, in a prayer line, or was water baptized but was saved in my car. This also remedied my pain for which I felt for my family. I now understood that all my pleading was in vain seeing that it was not I who chose Christ but rather God who chose me.
Since then it has been a gradual acceptance of the fact. I slowly found myself to be a four pointer if you will. However, I tried to mesh together the idea of Election with Foreknowing who would and would not accept Christ. It was like water and oil but nonetheless it made me feel good. I was not until a month ago that I finally accepted that the two are mutually exclusive and could not co-exist. At that point I must say next to my salvation experience this was the most profound event in my Christian walk.
Totally surrendering to the Sovereignty of God has changed my Christian walk forever.
Kyle
Kyle,
I do not, nor will I ever deny God’s Sov. nor his active involvement in judgement and blessings and our nor Israel’s inadequate responses to Isaiah’ words, Paul’s words and any other scripture. That should address all your scripture references as it pertains to human responsiblity and predestined acts of God.
If your theology, and one’s thelogoy is important, says that God predestines folks to Hell - then I respectfully disagree, and would defend that position with the scriptures.
You say You Arminians never answer questions you just go off into other areas to try and run from the questions.
Dude - I am not an Arminian nor am I an inclusivist, nor do I need to run from anything - maybe a big dog or my wife on a bad day, but certainly not you Kyle.
Perhaps I’ll post a detailed explanation on each of your scripture verses to promote your most hyper view of yourself (you being the elect and your view of others) and your theology. Until then, bring it on bro!
Love ya
Blackandreformed,
You said:
“Initially when this doctrine became true to me (for a year or so I fought against it with every fiber of my being even, conviced that this is what the bible taught and I wanted nothing of such a God) I became arrogant. I figured that I had some truth that most didn’t have and I wore it as a badge of honor. I enjoyed using the acronym TULIP and made sure everyone knew I understood it. I left many wounded on the road of theology with this mindset.”
First let me apologize to everyone if I seem arrogant. I am a young man, and I too struggled with the facts of this doctrine. And like you the fervency of the truth can often drive us feeble humans to do and say things which may seem arrogant. And yes I just recently fully succumbed to this truth after being an Arminian for years.
I humbly submit to everyone here that I in no way am implying that I am more pure in understanding or superior in intellect. I in no way think any less of Arminians nor do I question your salvation. However, by my recent revelation of the truth of grace I couldn’t help but shout it from the roof top if you will.
As I stated please accept my apology if I have offended anyone here. However, I will not denounce what I know to be sound biblical doctrine. From here on out let us all engage in civil discourse regarding this debate with humbleness and use of scripture as our guidepost.
In Christ,
Kyle Andrews
Kyle
By God’s grace I was saved over 20 years ago in a Reformed Baptist Church however brother, I find you and many others on this site REFRESHING, and it encourages me to return to my first love. Keep at it brother!(BTW, good to see you back BAR)
Some people are sincerely persuaded by Arminian doctrine (albeit to my understanding they’re sincerely wrong) on the other hand there are many who hold to Arminian doctrine because they believe Calvinism makes God appear evil (was it the great Methodist preacher John Wesley who said that Calvinism was conceived in hell?)
According to one preacher, he questioned whether Arminian teaching really let “God of the hook” and made him a fairer God?
Well of course Arminian doctrine is “fairer” they say because, man is given the option to choose salvation (which as many have already stated, smacks in the face of the Sovereignty of God). In response,the preacher gave an illustration. If I gave my son the choice between a cup of water or a cup of poison, would it be fairer because I gave him a choice or is it better that I call him and make him drink a cup of refreshing water? Hmmm. Get the drift? It’s not a tight logical argument but it may help to open our minds.
It’s not for us to worry about what seems correct, but what does the Bible teach. I hope I’m not quoting out of context but I do love the words of Abraham - a display of total trust in the character of God:
Genesis 18:25: “Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?””
God is totally Just.
What makes one man choose God’s offer and the other man refuse the exact same offer?
Man’s (God given) freedom to choose the Light over Darkness.
(MN: But the question remains - why did one choose to accept? Was he smarter, more discerning? Was it just pure chance and he could just as likely have gone in the other direction? Telling me they are free to choose doesn’t tell me why one goes in one direction and the other goes in another. What makes one man choose God’s offer and another refuse the exact same offer? )
If and when God hardends a man’s heart - is it not another act of grace? - encompassing His foreknowledge of the man’s future rebellion and more truth rejected, would only be worthy of more of God’s wrath, no?
Kyle - This as been a great discussion brother & I am still with Sprugeon on this issue, thanks for your efforts and the others who have commented, there is much Truth on both sides. Blessings.
Melvin,
You comment & ask - (MN: But the question remains - why did one choose to accept? Was he smarter, more discerning? Was it just pure chance and he could just as likely have gone in the other direction? Telling me they are free to choose doesn’t tell me why one goes in one direction and the other goes in another. What makes one man choose God’s offer and another refuse the exact same offer? )
My short answer - PRIDE.
(MN: So you’re saying I chose God because I didn’t have pride and the other guy rejected God because of his pride? Doesn’t that go against Paul’s statement about nothing good being in me? And doesn’t it go against the idea of being saved by grace? From what I understand you to be saying, He saved me because I didn’t have pride. That’s not grace is it? )
Lest we forget - God created Satan and all those that followed the #1, big daddy bad a** angel that had been the “star of the morning” and the “son of dawn”. “Lucifer” is now the prince of darkness - and our “accuser”. ( Isa. 14:12-15)
I rekcon we need an accuser at times - so we may “freely” reject such pride and turn towards the face of God - Christ incarnate. If am correct, albeit limited, there is indeed a necessary tension - God’s Will vs. our own. We, not Satan nor angels, were created in His image - I would think for a divine reason that also has eternal consequences, no?
Wow. I am really confused now. You should seriously consider putting these in order, cause it’s hard to find anything anymore…
I must admit I don’t agree with what you said about the verses. Yes, it says I was an enemy of God, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t WANT salvation. It just means I didn’t want God. This is true. But the woman with bleeding for 12 years wanted salvation, otherwise she wouldn’t have reached out for Him. The woman at the well, though she was living in sin as an enemy of God, was still waiting for salvation from Messiah. Zaccheus was friendless and sought friendship with Christ when He offered it freely. The Pharisees wanted salvation, if you think about it. Their problem, as is ours many times, is that they thought they could earn it by works (which they didn’t do very well, either.)
But I’d still like to hear what your thoughts are on some of my other questions.
Melvin - I see your point, but does Paul’s statement about nothing good being in us - necessarily abolish our ability (freedom albeit from God) and God’s universal offer (anyone) to choose Him (the Truth) over Darkness (the Lie)? I am not sure it does my friend.
(MN: Yes. Choosing light over dark on my own IS a goodness. And Paul says there is no good in me. )
I am going to bow out of this great discussion before I start counting dead sheep in my sleep ( in other words- I went nuts!) with one final thought - I am not offended if God indeed predestines folks to hell, how could I be?. I think this doctrine (election) probably “offends” me and others because it “offends” our human Will or ego - i.e pride and self-determination. The doctrine of election is most assurdely scriptrual, it’s like calling some one a brother, christian, or a believer etc..
That said, being of sinful flesh - I must trust God’s will, put Him at the center and not man’s (my own) Will or freedom. The message remains timeless and the same for all - repent now and turn from your wicked ways. Thanks for helping me work through this a bit more. Blessings!
To All Arminians
I’ve stayed away from this for a few days because I was getting a little “testy” if you will. However, I have been reading some of the responses from Arminians and I must say they have been less then convincing.
I had suggested as a way to have a constructive debate rather then what seems to be contentious argument (Which I am guilty of also) is to provide scripture references attempting to validate your point.
I had provided a list of scripture pertaining to the election and predestination of God which as of yet has not been debated nor refuted by the Arminian defenders on this site. Conversely, I HAVE addressed scripture references presented by those who suggest Free Will. I would please once again ask to have constructive dialog by providing your stance with scripture.
Scripture! Scripture! Scripture! -PLEASE!
Kyle
Kyle,
I think after all this time it’s a little late to ask for civility. We (the few arminians here) use scripture, point out the flaws in Calvin the man, and do the best we can to argue the over-whelming majority on this site. I maintain that I have come here to this site for its content, and to get info not availible anywhere else, but this issue is dead to me. I live in a metro area replete with fresh seminarians and I have enjoyed debating them, as well as Melvin Jones. But when you rely on ad hominem attacks (not unlike Calvinist James White), it cheapens the debate greatly. It’s too late to take back what you have said, and/or the attitude you displayed, thus showing your youth and “exuberance”, and since I am saved no matter what I do (apparently) I am going to invoke my grudge holding right! When we get back on track fighting Todd Bentley and the like, I will be back. But this isn’t the forum for this.
(MN: I think that except for Kyle’s somewhat…exuberant…comment, the discussion has been quite civil. Of course there was the usual accusation of John Calvin being a friend-killing murderer. But I can certainly let that pass. And it’s not too late. Surely your skin isn’t that thin.
I disagree. This is certainly the forum for this. Afterall, doing the work to get a firm hold on God’s sovereignty also gets you equipped to walk away from scam artists like Bentley.
Finally, no one is saying you are saved no matter what you do. Rather, we are idicating that what you do is an indicator of your salvation. However, if I remember correctly, a fellow asked a question about that a few months ago and I never got around to trying to address it. )
Professor Melvin, You said, “Finally, no one is saying you are saved no matter what you do. ”
Amen! Amen! Amen!
GOD is TOTALLY SOVERIGN! Even when GOD allowed Job to be tested…GOD never really answered “Why?” to Job’s questions–HE gave Job an overwhelming response, and asked Job “Where were you when I did this…and I did this and so on…
So Melvin and Kyle, do we agree with the following,
1. GOD “HAS” Chosen HIS people, 1st Adam to Noah to Abraham to Israel to CHRIST and now the Church(Jew and Gentile are ONE)…it had nothing to do with anyone of us (our ability, our will/desire, our reasoning, even our fallen nature, )
but HIS LOVE, HIS “FREE” Gift of Salvation
, GOD gave us HIS SON, GOD gave us HIS SPIRIT
…therefore we did not deserve or earn this GIFT but because GOD desired us be in fellowship with HIM and live with HIM forever.
2. The GIFT is available to All mankind even though GOD forsaw that many, many would reject HIS offer…Instead of calling the rejection man’s free will…I HUMBLY REPENT AND CORRECT MY POSITION to say that mankind has a “limited free will”, even Satan…the only one with a Total free will is GOD!) (MN: Not for all mankind. Only for those who has has chosen from before the foundation of the world. This is called limited atonement. He didn’t die for all, only for the elect. If He died for all that means his death was ineffective. This is clearly false. )
3. I will say GOD gave man from Adam to now and tomorrow…Free moral agency of man—ability to choose:
Resulted in sin Gen. 2:16, 17
Recognized by God Gen. 4:6–10; John 7:17
Appealed to Is. 1:18–20; Jer. 36:3, 7
Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson’s Quick Reference Topical Bible Index. Nashville, Tenn. : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995 (Nelson’s Quick Reference), S. 243
Strong’s concordance calls it “the free moral agency of man–the ability to choose which resulted in sin…
(MN: But at this point, unregenerate man no longer has the ability to choose God on his own. Again, this is the crux of our disagreement. Hardly something we agree on. )
4. The way any man accepts this gift is through faith in CHRIST. GOD has given “EVERY MAN” a measure of faith. Romans 12:3
Because salvation is a GIFT..No man can boast, even Christians, who love to pimp the words that we are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood(LOL). (MN: The verse in Romans isn’t talking about the unregenerate. It is written to the believers in Rome, encouraging those believers to be faithful and to exercise the gifts God has given to each of us. We are all members of one body and invidually members one of another. It’s not just a blanket statement about God giving faith to every one. )
5. Once we come from the darkness into the marvelous light(baptized in HIM, we are dead to the old man and put on the NEW MAN), HE promises to be with us (MN: Again, why do some decide to come into the light and others choose to stay in darkness. )
6. Once we accept GOD’s gift…HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST…We agree to HIS COVENANT and to keep HIS COVENANT…HE sets the rules…Patriarchs had animal sacrifices, Moses gave the law, and now grace through CHRIST with conditions, if ye love me, keep my commandments…abide in ME, and I will abide in you, communion, be witnesses, etc, etc.
7. Men are NOT to WILLFULLY SIN after coming to the knowledge of the truth. Heb 10:26*,26-39
8. Once converted, GOD “uses” and “allows” Satan and this pleasures of this world to tempt us and draw us back…backslide, or apostasy, or spiritual adultery…ie, “temptation” See Deuteronomy 8:1-3. (MN: God allows Satan to tempt us just as he tempted Jesus. He allows Satan to work in our lives, just as He allowed Satan to work in Job’s life. All that happens, good or bad, is from the hand of God. )
9. If one backslides, apostasizes…falls away from the faith, GOD can “will” to turn them over to Satan to draw the backslider back to HIM, or worse case, after the apostate refuses to repent (man’s choice and decision), GOD turns the backslider or apostate over to a reprobate mind and this person is lost forever! See Romans 1. Its a bad thing when GOD gives up on you.
10. As Christians, we must “choose” or “desire” to live holy and be ye doers of the word and not hearers only. Faith without works is dead.
11. There is NO Chance or Probabilities with GOD…HE said HE prayed that our faith fail us not, and when we are converted, go strengthen our brethen…Luke 22:32. GOD DOES NOT GUESS! It is Men that fall short and presume, NOT GOD.
Matthew 19:25-26 KJV
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
….ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE…We cannot put a Percentage or figure here.WE(mankind) are LIMITED.
(MN: Unfortunately, Arminianism removes God from the slavation business. All He does is provide the prize. It’s up to you to decide to take it. There in lies the probability. I might accept - I might not. According to Arminianism, salvation is not up to the Lord, it is up to the man. )
12. Last one and the BIG ONE.
Men CHOOSE to perish and suffer eternal damnation because they REFUSE to repent…Why? The Pride of Life.
EVERYONE is PREDESTINED to HELL BECAUSE OF THE FALL(Adam and Eve), BUT GOD MADE A WAY(THE ONLY WAY) OF ESCAPE THROUGH HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST, MESSIAH….One pharoah “repented” and released Abraham’s wife back to him. One pharoah witnessed the power of GOD through Joseph interpreting his 2 dreams and accepted Joseph(a type of CHRIST). Another pharoah hardened his heart after seeing 10 plagues and GOD hardened his heart(turned him over to a reprobate mind because he refused to let the people go and destroyed him and his army at the Red Sea)
King Saul(elect, chosen man) chose to sin and became reprobate and he perished.
King David(elect, chosen man) chose to sin with Bathsheba(she was not chosen? because she was another man’s wife) and murdered the husband…David did repent but all of David’s sons except Solomon died and went to Hell in sin…
Beloved Soloman became borderline apostate but GOD showed him mercy for David’s(a type of CHRIST) sake. If anybody knew better, it was Solomon….I believe his last days on earth were miserable…read Ecclesiastes
The Northern Kingdom of Israel became apostate and GOD scattered them over the face of the earth.
The Southern Kingdom refused to repent and GOD sent them into bondage.
Now GOD is going to deal with the sin in the Church just as HE dealt with Israel…HE has mercy on whom HE chooses to have mercy…GOD is lonsuffering to all…
GOD “controls” this because Romans 8:28…HE works all things out for HIS Good and our good…according to HIS purpose…This is why HE is SOVEREIGN! Even a Pharoah or many anti-christs and the son of perdition coming on the scene WILL NOT STOP GOD’s Word, Will, Plan, or Purpose. Even if only 8 people got on the ark…GOD still was sovereign in destroying everybody else that “CHOSE” TO NOT REPENT!
This scripture applies to EVERYBODY…the Elect, the Predestined, the Chosen, Jew, Gentile, Free, Bond, Male, or Female…Luke 13:2-5 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? (3) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall ALL likewise perish. (4) Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? (5) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall ALL likewise perish.
I am neither a Calvinist or an Arminian…I believe the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST from Genesis to Revelation. GOD bless each of you and I look forward to hearing your response…So Kyle, please read my responses thoroughly before you label someone. Thank you.
(MN: And I think at this point, the Arminians are starting to repeat themselves and are not actually dealing with the issues. Unless I get a little something else [like an answer to the question "Why does one person choose and the other reject?" that talks about man can choose, this is like the last set of comments in the posting.
Here's what I need: If you go back and read "Puppies Are So Cute" the question asked in there asked why two men, given a clear presentation of the Gospel at the same time, in the same way, hear the Gospel with equal clarity you'll have the bacground to the question. Up to the point of accepting the Gospel, ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL with Bubba and the other guy.
The question: What is there about the other guy that caused him to accept the Gospel and what is there about Bubba that caused him to reject the Gospel? If you say, as several have on this latest round, that Bubba rejected because he was proud, then you are saying there is something good in the other guy that caused him to accept. That means the other guy got in because he was smarter, more spiritual, less prideful , fill in the blank, than Bubba. That means that God chose the other guy becasuse of something good within him. What ever the reason you give for the other guy accepting the Gospel, you will have to explain to me why the same thing didn't happen to Bubba. Every time you point to something in the other guy as the reason for accepting the Gospel, you will be saying that qualification s the reason he accepted and that makes him better than Bubba. That "better than" quality, no matter how slight, removes salvation from the realm of grace and puts it into the realm of works.
If I say the other guy was more spiritual, then he got in because he was more spiritiual. And since, according to Arminianism, it was God how gave the person spirituality, it was because of the merits developed by the person. Works, not grace. If you say because the other person's heart was softer than Bubba's you now have to tell me why the other guy's heart was softer. If it is because of efforts on his part, apart from God working in him, you have again made salvation a result of something the other guy did, and it is works (however slight) and not grace.
What made the other guy stop being an enemy of God (something the Bibles says ALL unregenerates are) and decide to accept the gift given by God? If you say that the other guy did ANYTHING apart from God working in his heart, then you have made it a matter of works [no matter how slight], and not grace.
Works and grace are a little like perfume and sewage. If you take a gallon of sewage and put an ounce of perfume in it, you end up with sewage. However, if you take a gallon of perfume and put an ounce of sewage in it, you STILL end up with sewage. Grace and works do not mix. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. And so far, no one promoting Arminianism has presented an answer to the Bubba question. No one. All have generally descended into diatribes, accusations, and obfuscations (most of which I believe to be unintentional.
So again, why does one person accept the Gospel and another reject the exact same Gospel? )
Melvin, maybe we cannot answer that question. Look at Jeremiah 17:9-10
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
(10) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
I think we all agree that salvation comes from GOD through CHRIST–we want to know why one gets and one does not?
You, Kyle and I along with others have referenced the Scriptures. We may not like the answers, and this is where we have to humble ourselves as a little child…and trust our HEAVENLY FATHER. Amen.
Job gives the best answer to your question. “Why does one accept the Gospel and another reject the exact same Gospel?”
Job 21 is the best chapter to answer this deep, deep question, especially verses 14 and 15.
Job 21:14-15 Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. (15) What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?
Now, Melvin and Kyle, hear me with all sincerity when I ask you the following…I pray to GOD and hope with the love of GOD in me that you are not endorsing “Unconditional Eternal Security?”
With you melvin it always has been civil, but I have sermon prep and other things to do for this week. And I hope y’all know I was being satirical. But I am also really really tired of this subject….I’ll comment if I see anything…but probably not untill after Sunday
Kyle,
I’m a bit late on the discussion. So please bear with me if i’m deviating a little. But according to Revelation 3:1-6 (Letter to the Church in Sardis) Jesus states:
“1And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
2Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
3Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
4Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
5He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not BLOT HIS NAME OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
6He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”
First lets address the recipients of the letter. Based upon context, Jesus is clearly speaking to believers, since this is the CHURCH of Sardis. For he tells them that they have a name that they are alive, but according to thier DEEDS they are dead. So in his admonishment, the Lord tells them to WAKE UP! and strengthen the things that remain. He continues to insist that they need to remember the things that they recieved and REPENT, or else he will come to them like a thief. Lastly, his instructions to the CHURCH is that he who OVERCOMES, they will be the ones who will be clothed in white garments and He will not “ERASE HIS NAME FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE”……Interesting.
Brother Kyle, We see a clear example of those who are of the Church, according to Christ, and yet based upon thier deeds, they are in danger of their names being removed from the Book of Life, which eludes to the fact that they are in danger of going to hell. My question is, how can something be removed from a thing if it wasn’t first in there to begin with? Futhermore, wouldn’t you admit that they had to do something to either maintain, or as the Lord put it strengthen things that remain. Of course you may say that, i’m insisting that we earn our salvation - let that never be the case. However, i think its clear, based upon this instance that they are held accountable by what they do hence the words (Repent, Overcome, Strenghthen, and Remember). I don’t know it surely does appear that thier standing with God is based upon conditions….I will stop here.
I’m awaiting feed back, God Bless
TruthofGod,
Please explain Justification and these verses
Romans 8:1
John 5:24
Romans 8:28-31.
Based off of your statement God saves us through Christ but we must maintain our salvation. This leads to the next questions
1. How many sins does it take to lose your salvation and get your name blotted out of the book of life
2. Which sins are they, given that we all sin daily?
3. Wouldn’t that fly in the face of Romans 3:21-27?
Just curious how we are to handle this issue. It seems that you are promoting a works based salvation. Anything that we must do to keep our salvation means what?
TruthOfGod,
Great question! Lets first tackle Rev 3:5 seeing that this seems to indicates that the P in TULIP is in question.
Rev 3:5 KJV
5He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not BLOT HIS NAME OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Although I love the KJV and it IS my primary translation of choice we must actually use the NIV for a better translation.
Rev 3:5 NIV
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
The above scripture actually is one of perseverance or the P in TULIP. So although the KJV is an excellent translation indeed it fails to clarify what the passage is trying to convey. The passage is actually one of affirmation (I will NEVER blot…..) rather than potential condemnation. In fact lets look further in Revelation at REV 17:8
Rev 17:8 NIV
The beast that you saw used to exist. But now he does not. He will come up out of the Abyss. He will be destroyed. Some of the people who live on the earth will be amazed when they see the beast. Their names have not been written in the Book of Life from the time the world was created. They will be amazed because even though the beast used to exist and now does not, he will come again.
Notice two important things in this scripture verse. (1) Their names have not been written in the Book of Life (2)from the time the world was created.
We see that only the names of those who have been written in the Book of Life from the foundation of time are in fact God’s elect. We also see from the clarification of Rev 3:5 is one of perseverance.
Kyle
Brother Kyle, i think i understand your point, or interpretation of the passage. But, i guess my basic point is that (may be this is the million dollar question if you will…lol) why would Jesus need to admonish the church to repent?…. Are there any consequences that may arise if they don’t repent? If they are, what are they? If they aren’t any consequences (i.e. blotting thier name out of the Book of Life), then is Jesus bluffing or using some sort of reverse psychology JUST to motive them to do right? Interesting take….
Also you said: “Notice two important things in this scripture verse. (1) Their names have not been written in the Book of Life (2)from the time the world was created.”
Ok, now let’s assume (for discussion sake) that their names weren’t written in the Book of Life, since the world was created. But i think its kind of obvious that their names were in fact in there. For how can you either (remove or not remove) a thing if it is not there? To further my point, even if we went by the NIV which says: “He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.” Then based upon context, it still reads like there are some sort of condition that has to be met, and again if the condition is not made, then what is the consequence?…
Brother truthofgod, Amen. I agree with you 100%. And thank you for responding and affirming to 1 of my posts earlier this week.
Every Christian is the chosen and the elect. The danger with Calvinism and I believe you are in agreement with me about the dangerous, heretical, false teachings on “Unconditional Eternal Security?” And I say with the love of GOD in me to all reading this, if you believe in “Unconditonal Eternal Security” REPENT! We are bought with a price…We must live and abide by CHRIST’s rules, or lose our salvation…It’s conditional brothers and sisters! HE has given every available resourse to help us to overcome…HIMSELF, HIS Blood, HIS Body, HIS Spirit and HIS Word.
We must be like JESUS, live like JESUS, and work like JESUS in HIS SPIRIT, John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Christian Friends, we have alot of work to do for HIM! I praise GOD for this discussion because it has stirred me up to do(work) even the more for HIM. We can only accomplish this through faith in HIM and abiding in HIM.
ready4change,
I admire your spirit in this discussion and it would be nice if you did not disappear. I will admit first hand that many of these more technical points drift from the main issue, but only because they are argument lines that I believe people haven’t given very much consideration to, which you obviously have. What’s more I think you have actually read whom we are discussing. Now I would like to clarify every point you are unsure of my reasoning on, so if I give you too vague an answer please by all means post again, and thank you for remembering the spirit that this is all in. The first quote you use from me is actually, again not a claim but rather simply a defeater argument for the notion that God is all powerful in a Calvinist view. I agree that a more interesting question is why God created man, although I don’t want to presume as you do it is for his own glory, though given the scriptures that seems a logical move to make. I hold back because I believe God wills things beyond this life that are only understood in death, and nothing I really want to discuss now, though if you want to pursue I am willing to help. Next, to the point of “it is finished” being an event, I would want to say that this event’s significance is well beyond just the fulfillment of the old testament, though that is a good starting point, I mean we use it to set our calendar’s for goodness sakes. But to address your specific question (and actually I have about six responses to this question but I will give you two for now) consider Exodus 32:30-35. Moses in this passage is acting as the high priest, which Jesus on the cross did as well. And God makes it very clear that he will “blot out the name of those who sin against him from his book.” So this can be interrupted that every person’s name is in the book but that some get blotted out, there are many references to blotting out names in the bible. Revelation 3:5 even says that God will not blot out the names of those who overcome, which thinking about its opposite nature means he would blot out those names of those who do not overcome. Beyond this I think it is safe to assume that God is at least a four dimensional being (and assuming you believe time is the fourth dimension which I am a little skeptical about myself) meaning that he could very well and within logical speculation have said it is finished at the time the earth was formed and after everyone who was going to accept Jesus did. And again “IT IS FINISHED” is something much more significant than just these technical theological points, and it is important to move towards that significance, whether or not you believe in Calvinism or the alternatives.
Now as to your next point your scripture, “You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in my name He may give to you”
I think this needs a little context however:
“Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.”
Now it seems to me that the point Jesus is making here is that he is the first to choose in the relationship. It is utterly pointless if we were to choose God but God did not want us. Jesus is the vine and from him we can grow, so long as we “remain in him”, so long as we obey his commandements, so long as we put effort into the relationship as well. This is actually, when put into context, a rather strong case for the opposition don’t you think? The choice of imperatives is certainly interesting.
With regards to Pharaoh and Paul I maintain my stretched positions. Exodus 8:15 “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, HE HARDENED HIS HEART” and it is said again in 8:32. The end of this passage also says just as the lord had said. But the phrase is that Pharaoh hardened his heart. This again has to do with God being the creator of both nature and morality. Some things are consequences of choice and this is what pharaoh’s decision brings him, God saying he will harden his heart is because God knows what his choice will be. In regards to Paul you can still read all those scriptures with the belief that God has a purpose for every person’s life, which I believe he does, and that one chooses whether or not to fulfill that purpose. I so no contradiction and I need a better explanation to find one.
Towards your next point that you think a more interesting question is what makes a man choose God, I could not agree more with you. I don’t think any two men are the same so, I don’t expect a single answer. (MN: This is a ducking of the question. Why would an enemy of God choose God on his own? How does an enemy of God get past his eneminess to want to choose God? And why couldn’t the other guy get past his eneminess to choose God? What was there in the first who chose and what was lacking in the second who rejected? )
In your next question “if God based His acts solely upon the free acts of what men will do, how does this not reduce his sovereignty?” I don’t think he bases his acts “solely” upon the free acts of man, but he does base some of his decisions on this, like Moses in Exodus 32. Also, I don’t think we should equate sovereignty with tyranny, the freedom to do whatever one pleases, for this, in many respects, is the opposite of sovereignty.
(MN: Isn’t this a lot like being kind of dead or a little pregnant? You can’t be some degree of sovereign. Either you are or you are not. )
Anyway those are my answers and I am sorry to everyone else for taking up so much space, cheers! (MN: Not a problem. You answered the question - generally, and provided a basis for further examination. We have a while to go before we get to the 120 - 140 comment limit I kind of have on the more active postings. )
JJones,
Look at my recent response to TruthOfGod regarding Rev 3:5. You will find that these scripture verses are in fact speaking of predestination and election.
Kyle
JJones,
Thanks for the response, as well as the invitation to continue…Again, unfortunately I have to decline, for I’ve promised to be a man of my word and give the gift of the last word when I say that I will…You have recieved this gift, so though there is much I could say regarding your response, I wont…I did not endeavor to give a full exposition of those scriptures, I just wanted to get a feel for where you were coming from…I understand that, and it will suffice for me…The main reason I will not throw my hat into the fray is because I percieve that you have your hands full already, and I do not want you to get the impression that you’re being bullied…Trust me on this…There are those of my brethren who have not yet begun to scratch the surface with you, some of whom have yet to comment…Believe me, whatever I would have communicated would pale in comparison to what they will share with you (I hope they make it in before Mel’s 140 post limit)…So all that’s left for me is to grab my popcorn and enjoy…I look forward to your responses and the dialogue in general…
Solus Christus,
R4C
(MN: Mark, I will post this comment since you at least highlighted the portion of Scripture you are focusing on. However, in the future, do not simply post cuts and pastes of verses without some exposition on your part. I do not have a clear statemen tof where you stand on them. For instance, you quote Jesus in talking about gathering Jerusalem’s chirldren together. Are you saying, as I do, that they LEADERS of Israel were not will to have the children (believers) gathered under His wing? If so, then this doesn’t really address the idea of God’s sovereignty in drawing the sinner to Him.
And who do you believe the “none” that God want to perish to be? The general human? )
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!
Luke 8:12 “Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”
1 Thessalonians 2:16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up [the] [measure] [of] their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Mark,
I don’t want to pick on you. But you must be very careful. For example. You used 1 John 2.
Lets see what does propitiation mean?
Propitiation means the satisfaction of God’s wrath by Christ death on the Cross. Now let me ask. Are everybody’s sins propitiated? If that is the case what is Jesus saying in John 3:36? To use this verse as a catch all means that everyone individuals (the whole world as you have used it to defend your position) have been propitiated. Do you believe this?
Next you used 2 Peter 3:9.
Lets look at the pronoun “us”. Who are the “us” in this context? Who are the recepients of this letter? Whenever Peter say you, us, we and then says “them or they” who is the us and who are the they? Next if you follow your logic, Peter says “all should come to repentance” If God not willing that none “should perish” why are some perishing? Because God’s will wasn’t accomplished could be your only answer. Is that what you are saying?
BlackandReformed,
Who are the all in the following scriptures pertaining to?
“reconcile to himself ALL things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:20). God has appointed His Son to be the “heir of ALL things” (Hebrews 1:2) and in God’s Son “shall ALL the nations be blessed” (Galatians 3:8).
(MN: All nations being blessed is not the same as everyone in all nations being blessed. )
(MN: Being an heir of all things doesn’t mean the things are saved. My son is an heir of my 1992 Honda. But the Honda is not a member of my family. )
God has given His Son “authority over ALL flesh, to give eternal life to ALL whom He has given Him” (John 17:2). “The Father has given ALL things into the Son’s hands” (John 3:35) “ALL flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6). “He desires ALL people to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4).
(MN: Having authority over all flesh doesn’t mean all flesh will be saved. I have authority over my butler. But he will never be a blood member of my family. )
(MN: Having all things in the Son’s hands is not the equivalent of salvation. Hebrews talks about the dread of falling into the HANDS of an angry God. This isn’t speaking of salvation. )
He “gave himself as a ransom for ALL” (1 Timothy 2:6). He “is not wishing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He “has consigned ALL to disobedience, that he may have mercy on ALL” (Romans 11:32) “for from him and through him and to him are ALL things” (Romans 11:36).
(MN: Not talking about every soul. Rather he is speaking of the various peoples. He wishes that Jews (not all Jews), that Greeks (not all Greeks), that Mesopotamians (but not all Mesopotamians) would be saved. )
So God’s plan is “to unite ALL things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:10).
(MN: Nothing talks about people being united in spirit. )
The Father has “put ALL things under Christ’s feet” (Ephesians 1:22) and has “given ALL things into his hands” (John 13:3). Jesus has promised to “draw ALL men” to Himself (John 12:32) because “the Father loves the Son and has given ALL things into his hand” (John 3:35). Jesus said, “ALL that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37).
“The grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for ALL people” (Titus 2:11).
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). “He is the Savior of ALL people” (1 Timothy 4:10)
(MN: All people - Jews, Greeks, Indians, Mesopotamians. Not every soul on the earth. )
His power “enables him to subject all things to himself’” (Philippians 3:21).
“In Christ shall all be made alive” (I Corinthians 15:22). “He restores all things” (Acts 3:21). “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10-11).
(MN: Being in subjection is not the same as being saved. )
For `God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says `all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
(MN: Being in subjection is not the same as being a disciple. )
I have yet to see anyone address these apparent contradictions to the Arminian and Calvinistic perspectives.
Jon Paden
(MN: I have addressed all of your references. Now, either say something signficiant or expect to have your postings disposed of. )
Uh, dude, that’s what the verse says. “…and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” Propitiation also means to turn away wrath. That means when God sees a sinner covered in the blood of Christ, just as He passed over the Israelites, so He passes over us. The sacrifice has been provided, but it still is left to put that blood on the doorposts of your heart.
Simon,
Where do you see “it is left for you to put the blood on the doorposts of your heart” I have a few versions of the bible and I haven’t come across that one just yet. Anybody else have the same versions Simon does?
Simon you have a wrong definition of propitiation. Propitiation means the wrath is removed not the wrath is removed theoretically and now you just need to apply the removal. If your sins are atoned for you don’t need to do something to to get the atonement applied. Am I wrong here Melvin am I missing something?
Hey Mark,
It is also funny that you choose 1 Thessalonians 2:16! Why? Where here is 1 Thessaloinans 1:4-7
4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. 6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.
It is funny because the very doctrine you are refuting is used the open the letter “ekloge” is the word or election. Let me know what you think. Next you have to understand the use of the word World in Johanian letters, but that is a different overall post.
I stand neither in the Calvin or Arminian camps - I think both can be destructive to God’s Truth when taken to extremes.
God’s wrath is revealed to all who surpress the Truth - Romans 1:18-23, and no man is without excuse or without the Truth.
Luke 10:12-16 - two cities will endure a greater wrath than Sodom. Why “greater” if they were predestined to hell and would have had no choice in rejecting the Truth? Because God did not predestine them to Hell, they condemned themselves and God held them accountable for their choice - i.e. a greater wrath than Sodom.
One does not necessarily deny God’s Soverienty by saying man is free to choose and or reject the Truth. “All” means all, “everywhere” means everwhere, and none are excluded. The word “world” is never used in the Bible to express anything but “cosmos” to my knowledge, not only “some” or the “elect”.
No man is predestined to Hell - none.
BAR- Yes, God’s will is accomplished when one goes to Hell. Yes, God still desires none shall perish. I think to say God kept some from knowing the Truth is to redefine His character, His very definiton so to speak.
If someone is saved, they are in the Lord’s hand. The doctrine of “backslide” asserts that someone can of their own will jump out of the Lord’s hand and become a child of Satan again. Somehow become unborn. And I understand how that faulty doctrine is taught, because I once use to defend it right here on this blog.
But as I read more carefully I had to admit, that this is clear.
1) Jesus died for the sheep and made it clear who He died for, John 10:14-15. This means any claims of who Jesus died for MUST be viewed in the context of believers or those who will become believers, never those who never believe and die in their sins.
2) Jesus made it clear nobody can get to Him unless it was granted by the Father, John 6:60-71.
3) Jesus affirmed the elect are forever kept, John 10:27-30.
4) Jesus affirmed the elect will not be kept in deception of false prophets, Matthew 24:24.
5) The Apostles affirmed the elect are forever kept and never separate, which was the predestinated design of God alone, Romans 8, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.
6) Election is all over scripture, including the Hebrew scriptures. Abraham from a family of pagans was chosen. Noah at birth and before following a single instruction to build an ark, was declared to be a man of good, Genesis 5:28-29. Such cannot be declared before hand unless the doctrine of divine election is true. And it’s not a partial matter, but full and true for every believer. Not just something that happened for Noah. Just as Noah was kept in the ark he was chosen by God to enter, we are kept in Christ. If we are kept and Satan can’t snatch us back, we can’t “backslide”.
7) The doctrine of election and eternal security is NOT “Calvinism” it is the consistent doctrinal standard of the church.
I found the book of John made way more sense once I stopped feeling my salvation was based somehow on my own ability to do good deeds. If the doctrine of “backslide” is true, than salvation is based on works. And enough bad works will cause me to fall out of a hand that I’ve been assured I can’t be taken by Satan from, the hand of the Lord.
I am the Lord’s, either the Word of my Lord is true and Satan can never have me back, or the Word is untrue and I stand based on how long I can personally maintain a certain level of good works.
Kyle,
“I had provided a list of scripture pertaining to the election and predestination of God which as of yet has not been debated nor refuted by the Arminian defenders on this site. Conversely, I HAVE addressed scripture references presented by those who suggest Free Will. I would please once again ask to have constructive dialog by providing your stance with scripture.”
You haven’t responded to me since the first time I asked you to and I am sure it is because you have no idea which way to push the argument against someone who doesn’t have a historical theology. I have provided you with an extensive amount of refutation, some with scripture, other points with logic, and you have not adequately responded on either account to a single charge against your doctrine. Further more I haven’t you seen engage a point beyond your first ones. Now I realize that calling you out on this seems to take away from the civility, which I truly don’t mean to, but it seems hypocritical at least to say what you just did and not respond to me in any way. If you want to have this debate I am engaged, but if you want a revival, where everyone just agrees with what you are saying, then you need to drop the pretension that you actually want a debate.
MN,
Thank you for your responses to my points but of course I don’t think you are right. You only it two of them so I will also respond to just two of them. As a side note by the way, I don’ mind it, but I think you might want to wait until the end of a post to put in your editoral remarks, I’m sure Mr. paden would have wanted his scriptures read in order. But like I said it doesn’t bother me. Anyway, where you claim that I am ducking the question I disagree. I answered the specific charge that was against me which was what makes a man choose God.
And the fact is that millions of people have chosen God, and each one with a slighlty different reason, so I can’t possibly give each of the millions of reasons why someone chose God. But let me address your points as well. You said the following “MN: This is a ducking of the question. Why would an enemy of God choose God on his own? How does an enemy of God get past his eneminess to want to choose God? And why couldn’t the other guy get past his eneminess to choose God? What was there in the first who chose and what was lacking in the second who rejected?”
There are several biblical references I could give you, I think for instance the prodigal son is a good story, but let me make it more practical. When scrooge, in a Christmas Carol, sees Fizzywhig, he says to the Ghost something like, “Ah but the happiness he gives is as though it cost him nothing, he has the freedom to render people happy or sad.” I can find the exact quote if you want, but the point is that Scrooge doesn’t realize just how twisted his life has become until he sees it again. (MN: Sorry. Charles Dickens does not rate as a source of doctrine. It’s fiction. )
In the case of Saul he didn’t realize that what he was doing was destroying God’s kingdom until Jesus appeared before him. I personally think that most people who reject God do so because they have a bitter heart, and I think that a bitter heart is something God despises above many other things. But like I have said this is just one case there are many others that are very different.
I had a friend who was the biggest social alcoholic you could find. One night, during his high school career, he went with his friends to a college campus and got very drunk. He then went out walking on the streets and ran into a police officer who arrested him. After that he began to question ever drinking again. And after that he thought God might have a plan for his life. And after that he thought maybe he should be a youth minister. And after that he became one. But he beforehand gave no concern towards God.
I have another friend who is as nice as she can be. She is a very joyful person, but she got burned really bad by a church when she was little and she has since then maintained her atheism. She is a much different case then Pharaoh. But nevertheless her choice comes from the fact that she views or at least perceives God in a negative way. There are several more examples but you see each one has a special circumstance. I hope that answers your set of questions but if it doesn’t, respond and I will talk to you.
To your second point, “Isn’t this a lot like being kind of dead or a little pregnant? You can’t be some degree of sovereign. Either you are or you are not.” My issue is with the definition of sovereignty. How does God basing some of his decisions off of man’s choices reduce his sovereignty? He is still free to do otherwise. Like I said, a tyrant is someone who is free to do whatever they want and does do whatever they want.
God I believe has absolute freedom (which might be different than infinite freedom) but he doesn’t use it like a tyrant, as in the case of Moses. The specific phrase is found in exodus 32:14. I really though need your definiton of sovereign, and if it is not too much to ask, how does it differ for you from autonomy or does it?
As a side note, I have posted more specific answers on this particular blog issue than any other individual, so I think to say I am answering generally is understating the case. Kyle has given generalized answers, in fact his have been formulaic, but mine have been very specific, and I have answered every charge against my posts, which I believe the author of the first post has not, and I urge you to explain how I have generalized if you think that is really the case. Anyway, I know you mean nothing of ill-will so I won’t take issue any further and happy posting!
I hate to barge in again, but, from what I have been able to read, you have yet to answer the basic questions Scripturally concerning what Melvin asked you. What does an enemy of God who has (according to Romans 8:7-8) hate God, does not want to follow His Law and cannot follow His Law, become someone who runs to God in repentance, desiring the safety and love of the God they, only the moment before, spurned?
You bring up the example of the alcoholicl. He stopped his drinking and began to question everything. From that it almost seems like we can reason our way into faith. Yet, our reason is held captive by sin just as much as any other instrument at our disposal. May I suggest that God was acting unknown upon the young man and bringing him to those conclusions? If we do not come to it from that way, then all we have to do (we conclude) is appeal to someone’s reason enough and they will be saved. If such is the case, then such a person could argue that they were smart enough to understand the arguments. Who, then, gets the glory?
Ultimately, the state of your female friend now and the state of the drunk before hand is no different. She is not interesting because she has a negative view of God. We ALL had or have a negative view of God as evidenced by Romans 1:18-32. Those who have not repented of their sins (for whatever supposed reason) do not do so because they want no part of God. It is in their nature to want not part of God. What has to happen is Something or Someone has to barge in and completely overthrow their rebellious will.
Ultimately we have to ask this question: Who overthrew my sinful desires and rebellion against God? Me? Him? As a rebellious son of the Devil, my actions were controlled by my rebellious nature. Even the “good” things I did were utterly sinful. Our greatest righteousness are filthy rags before God. If then my every desire was filthiness and my heart was inclined against Him, what made me choose Him?
IC
Just to help my understanding how do you understand backsliding?
Just as those who claim it. Just as they taught it to me. Their claim is, that you today being a Christian can go off into sin and “backslide” and at that point be outside of the ark of salvation, that if the Lord returned or you died at that moment they have declared you in the “backsliden position” you would go to hell. And so they tell Christians that they can literally LOSE their salvation, that they while saved today could somehow become unsaved.
The doctrine of “backsliding” is to claim that someone can lose their salvation. And it goes in concert with the claims against the doctrine of election, to claim that man chooses God and man can un-choose God.
Scripture is clear, that God is the one who is choosing, hence the use of the term “elect”, 2 Timothy 2:10. It’s not man who made the election, but God. Because it’s not man who has something of value for God, but God who has something good for those He draws to Himself.
The only “free will” man has is the will to sin continually. Man of himself is spiritually dead. The dead don’t want God and turn from Him, Romans 3:10-18. You didn’t choose God and you didn’t want God of “free will”. The only way someone desires the Lord is the Father granting repentance as He chooses, so that they come to knowledge of the truth, come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Flesh is inherently evil, not good and wants nothing good. That is the state of all without Christ. For them to “choose” Christ of their own personal “free will” is an impossible task, because their free will is of the flesh, for nothing good. The Spirit gives life and is from God alone. Those who seek and embrace truth only do so because God drew them to His Son, the ONLY means of salvation for anyone.
So it is not dead man who gets any credit, but God alone.
Here are some good teaching videos on the topic.
A Video Discussion of Predestination. Parts 2 & 3. (Part 1 included for convenience.)
How is God’s Sovereignty defined and differentiated from fatalism?
Peace and blessings
tee jay
The difference is the foundation. The truth of God’s sovereignty is standing on the foundation of scripture.
Fatalism is in the philosophies of men, not standing on scripture.
Fatalism ends up as the man in Matthew 25:24-30. Why go share the gospel, just let “fate” decide? Jesus said go share the gospel with the unbelievers, as one would invest money with bankers, so it may draw interest. We share the gospel with those who don’t believe, because just as belief is predestinated for the elect, so is the fact that someone will love them enough to share the truth with them.
Hey,go 2 “bible.ca”,click on “the interactive bible” link.In the “search 4 this” box type in “calvinism”.And,just take it from there.
(MN: ONE, pointing us to a website doesn’t do anything for the discussion. Tell us why you think the link you point to addresses what was said in the posting. Relate the two. Don’t just copy and paste information. In other words, where do the two articles differ, how do they differ and why do you accept what is said in the recommended article?
Some of the writer’s articles indicate he doesn’t have a good hold on Monergism. He also sees our salvation as being works related. Do you believe our salvation is works related? )
I appreciate the feedback,thanks for sharpenning iron a little bit.But,it seems like you’er already beginning to understand “some” things.I’ll just leave the rest for you to wrestle with( (MN: Commenters also don’t get to drop off a long list of verses without expounding on them. Listing a verse doesn’t tell us what you think, or how you understand it. Try again. ) )
God’s word is better than mine,and the scriptures I provided (I believe) answered “alot”(…,besides..Lk.16:31).
(MN: Here’s the problem: I don’t know what you think they mean. You have to tell me. Otherwise, all you did was recite a bunch of Bible references. What does it mean and how does it apply to our discussion. Afterall - John 3:16, Phil 4:12, Eph 2:10 and Ezra 1:1-5 and most telling - - Matt 10:24-28 and 1 Cor 9:24-27. Ya know? )