Why do Arminians...

[stan1953]

I'm not lending more force to what Paul said over Jesus since Jesus ultimately wrote it all. But Luke is a narrative describing what happened. Paul is explaining what happens in the foreground. They compliment each other.

No, God inspired it all. Men wrote it. Still doesn't answer my point.
Again these type of assertions prove NOTHING.

 

[stan1953]

There's nothing to prove, really. It's a narrative account that tells us nothing of regeneration, justification, etc.

Then why say it does?

 

[Hammster]

No, God inspired it all. Men wrote it. Still doesn't answer my point.
Again these type of assertions prove NOTHING.

I'm not pitting Paul against the Word. They compliment each other. Your only argument would have to be that Paul was wrong when he said that we are justified by faith, or that the woman in Luke was saved some other way besides justification.

 

[Hammster]

Then why say it does?

It explains Paul witnessing to the jailer, and the jailer and his family being saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It explains Paul witnessing to the jailer, and the jailer and his family being saved.

Yes, by grace through faith in Christ. Salvation is conditional.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, by grace through faith in Christ. Salvation is conditional.

Merited, you mean. Well, I guess it's the same thing.

 

[nobdysfool]

So, who is, then? If a lexicon is one of "many tools", what are the others?

Any sort of true Greek Scholar would know, instead of asking me silly questions.

Maybe the amount of posts generated on this particular thread hasn't risen to your level of consciousness, but I asked for a specific post. That means post #. Not some vague response. I don't have the time to try to dig through possible pages of posts to determine what you might have meant. If you don't provide the exact post #, forget it. That only means there really isn't one.

Snarky replies about my level of consciousness don't aid discussion. I know that some here think I'm stupid, it screams from their every reply to my posts, talking down to me like i was some annoyance to squash like a bug. I'm not being overly sensitive, I understand words because words mean things. and the words people use reveal the thoughts of their heart.
for your information, the post was this one: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=65657198

What makes your opinion so true?

What makes yours so true?

An equally valid question is, why NOT? We know from Scripture that God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27), and that God has revealed His divine attributes and existence to everyone (Rom 1:19-20).

and where does it say that that knowledge alone is enough for man to be saved?

So, what's stopping man from believing?

His sinful heart, and hatred of God, which is also referred to in Romans 1. You know, the part being glossed over...

Seems your insinuation is that God's creative attempt is less than satisfactory, if man cannot seek (or believe) in God or what He promises.

I am insinuating nothing of the sort, It is YOU who has done so, by trying to knock what I say down by falsehoods and innuendo, rather than by Scripture. You have not shown that what you say is true, and Scripture says the opposite.

And that view is quite unsatisfactory to me. Completely so.

that's not my problem...

Spiritual death only means separated from God, not lack of function as your next point is claiming.

Spiritually dead men are not capable of doing anything pleasing to God, which is what spiritually alive men can do, by virtue of their regeneration. So there is an issue of functionality involved, whether seen or not. Denials do not make it not so.

This isn't even close to the issue. Spiritually dead men CAN and DO hear the voice of the Son of God (Jn 5:25). No one here is arguing that man makes themselves alive, so please quit with all these silly red herrings.

Baseless accusations of red herrings are a diversionary tactic. Spiritually dead men can and do hear the voice of God WHEN GOD REGENERATES THEM! Not before.

Sure. And who are the 'us' in THAT context? Paul included himself with his audience. So, who was his audience? Believers in Ephesians.

And Paul is telling them what happened that made it possible for them to be believers: the quickening of God. Yes he's speaking to believers, reminding them of how they became believers.

Here is what Paul was saying: God quickens believers.

No, that's not what Paul said. He said you (believers) were made alive, SO THAT you (believers) could know the riches of His Grace

Except that there aren't any verses that say or teach that. So there is no reason on earth to believe any of this.

Why is it that you always want neat little one-line verses for everything? The bible is not a collection of stand-alone verses. Some theological points come to light after study, and comparing scripture with scripture, and considering ALL of Scripture. It isn't always jumping off the page at you, sometimes you have to look for it, dig for it, and spend time in prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal it to you. I know that goes against the easy-believeism, fast-food mentality of most Churches today, but that doesn't mean that isn't the way it is. Ask any true biblical scholar and they will affirm what I'm saying.

God DOES require belief before He will save anyone. Seen in the myriads of verses that link belief to eternal life/salvation.

Regeneration is NOT salvation. It is UNTO salvation, AFTER one believes. But they must be regenerated first.

Not really. If your statement were true, then people could will themselves to believe anything, whether sane or not. But no one can will themself to believe anything. Yes, we choose what we will believe, but it is NOT based on man's will.

No, that doesn't follow. The will doesn't cause one to believe, but in order to believe, one must decide to do so. Belief is a decision.

I will believe your claim here IF you can prove to me that you are able to will yourself to believe that Santa Claus actually exists and brings presents to everyone at Christmas time. Please let me know how that works out.

Now who's being silly and ridiculous? You throw down a ridiculous challenge, because deep down, you think I'm stupid. There is no other way to look at it. Why don't you just be honest and admit it?

Unless you can prove your claim that one wills what they believe, there is no reason to accept that view.

You have decided not to believe it. That's the other side of the same coin.

This is all in error. It is NOT an act of the will.

What is it then? An act of the emotions? Talk about unstable!

The challenge has been made. When you can prove to me and this thread that you can will yourself to believe in Santa Claus, I will believe it. But not until then.

The so-called 'challenge' is ridiculous, and silly, and would only be valid if there were a chance that i could actually prove it, which we both know is impossible. So the challenge is invalid, and of no consequence or use. It proves nothing. It's a waste of time.

I will be waiting for your proof of this claim. I've given a pretty simple thing to believe. Can you do it?

Do you really think you have refuted me with a ridiculous and silly 'challenge' that cannot be fulfilled? Such a challenge is invalid, because it is bogus, and assumes an impossibility. One cannot prove truth with falsehood.

Hold on right there. I've said NOTHING about 'studity or ignorance. Those most definitely ARE goading and flaming. But statements that ARE silly or ridiculous will be noted. If one doesn't want their posts to be described that way, it's imperative that one doesn't make a silly or ridiculous post.

By whose measure? The employment of innuendo, and subtle wording that does hint at just those things lead to such a conclusion. If you don't see it, that's your problem, but when everyone else here can see it, including Oz, then I'd say that you do have a problem with it.

This is just an ill-informed judgment of my standards. Please DO hold my words to account.

We have been trying to with limited success so far, because there is an attitude of 'I can't be wrong' in many of your posts.

Why do you think I frequently ask other posters to refute my points specifically? Because if I say anything that can be proven false, I surely want to know about it.

Then why resist so vehemently when we attempt to just that? Why attack us for doing so? Maybe you don't see it that way, but you're not on the receiving end of it. We are. That's the way it comes off.

We both don't want to be wrong. But the difference is that I ask for refutation of my points, and your response to any refutation or criticism is overly sensitive.

]Not overly sensitive, I just don't like to be treated as though I were some sort of moron who should know better. It's insulting, it's rude, and Jesus would never speak to me that way, or to you that way either.

I've gotten very strong disagreements with all the Calvinists who post here. But I'm still waiting for actual refutation, which has not been presented. When I ask, the usual response is, 'already done that', when all that was done was to reject what I posted, or simply disagree with it, or worse, ignore or dodge what I posted. None of that counts as refutation.

Refutation is not the be-all and end-all of discussion here. Would you speak to Jesus the way you speak to any of us here? My bet is, no, you would not. If Jesus told you that you were wrong about something, would you demand that He provide refutation? Again, I'm betting that you wouldn't.

You come in here with a combative attitude, and then express shock that we have decided we are not going to play that game. It's not that we can't, we just choose not to. And in so choosing, you have won nothing. Lack of refutation is not a win for you. It just shows that you've been playing with the wrong deck of cards...

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I was responding to your mention of what I said and it's implication. I have no idea why you could not understand that?

Okay so let's start back from square one. Do you interpret John 12:32 to mean that all men who have ever lived, are living and will live (without any qualification) have been drawn, are drawn, or will be drawn to Jesus Christ?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

OK, please provide any verse that uses the Greek equivalents of "elect/election" that link election to salvation. I'm specifically referring to these 3 words:
ekloge (noun), eklegomai (verb) and eklectos (adjective).

1 Thess 1:4-5 - For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 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.

So election is sure of the Thessalonians because the Gospel (which leads to salvation) was received by them in full conviction.

These are the 3 Greek words that have been translated "elect" (verb and adjective), and "election: (noun).

There are at least 2 other Greek words translated "choose/chose". Neither of them has ever been translated as "elect".

I'd be interested in knowing what terms you are referring to, but anyways, the term translated as "elect/election" is also translated as "choose/chosen". So your argument is self defeating.

 

[stan1953]

Okay so let's start back from square one. Do you interpret John 12:32 to mean that all men who have ever lived, are living and will live (without any qualification) have been drawn, are drawn, or will be drawn to Jesus Christ?

First of all, I think v32 is answered by v33, but to go further, it would mean all men as in more than the Jews. Then you can see their response in v34.
They didn't have an issue with the 'drawn' part and neither should we. The fact is the connotation of this word is more visual, or attraction, than spiritual in the context of this part of scripture.
The cross exerts a universal attraction, and people of all nationalities, Gentiles as well as Jews, are being be saved through it. “All” here means all kinds of people, without distinction, not all members of the human race without exception. Jesus knew some would NOT be attracted to His sacrifice, but He followed God's will anyway.

 

[OzSpen]

So there is a logical order. Thanks for affirming what you previously denied.

This is Hammster's eisegesis of what I wrote AGAIN.

Originally Posted by Hammster

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you didn't decide to believe (faith) you wouldn't be saved, according to your theology.
​

OzSpen: And that's what the Scriptures teach:

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 ESV)

​

I was affirming what the Scriptures COMMAND, '(You) believe' and you have the audacity to eisegete by saying I affirmed what I previously denied of a logical order.

I said nothing of the sort and I object strongly to your lying about what I said in regard to Acts 16:31. Please quit your eisegetical manipulation of what I wrote.

Oz

 

[stan1953]

It explains Paul witnessing to the jailer, and the jailer and his family being saved.

and what was Paul's instruction on HOW to be saved?

 

[whitebeaches]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has undergone a little clean up due to the violation of the flaming rule. Please remember to address the context of the post only and not the poster. Please remember to stay on topic.

Talking about other members is considered off topic and those type of posts can be subject to removal. A list of the forum rules can be found here. Thank you and may you have a pleasant day.​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Hammster]

and what was Paul's instruction on HOW to be saved?

Read Acts 16:30.

 

[Hammster]

This is Hammster's eisegesis of what I wrote AGAIN.

Originally Posted by Hammster

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you didn't decide to believe (faith) you wouldn't be saved, according to your theology.
​

OzSpen: And that's what the Scriptures teach:

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 ESV)

​

I was affirming what the Scriptures COMMAND, '(You) believe' and you have the audacity to eisegete by saying I affirmed what I previously denied of a logical order.

I said nothing of the sort and I object strongly to your lying about what I said in regard to Acts 16:31. Please quit your eisegetical manipulation of what I wrote.

Oz

You said it all happened simultaneously. I said that faith logically preceded regeneration on your theology. You said no it didn't. I asked if faith preceded regeneration in your theology. You said it did.

No misrepresentation on my part.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

First of all, I think v32 is answered by v33, but to go further, it would mean all men as in more than the Jews. Then you can see their response in v34.
They didn't have an issue with the 'drawn' part and neither should we. The fact is the connotation of this word is more visual, or attraction, than spiritual in the context of this part of scripture.
The cross exerts a universal attraction, and people of all nationalities, Gentiles as well as Jews, are being be saved through it. “All” here means all kinds of people, without distinction, not all members of the human race without exception. Jesus knew some would NOT be attracted to His sacrifice, but He followed God's will anyway.

I am glad that we can agree on that. Therefore, we can further agree that you do not [by implication and fruition] believe in Universalism.

But you are still left with John 6:44 and the mention of αὐτόν (him). Is the αὐτόν of the drawing the same αὐτόν of the raising?

 

[OzSpen]

You said it all happened simultaneously. I said that faith logically preceded regeneration on your theology. You said no it didn't. I asked if faith preceded regeneration in your theology. You said it did.

No misrepresentation on my part.

You refuse to write about exactly the issue I was dealing with in Acts 16:31, 'YOU believe...'.

So please quit your eisegesis of what I wrote about this verse. Your red herring about getting into a logical order is eisegesis of what I wrote about Acts 16:31.

 

[OzSpen]

Read Acts 16:30.

Read Acts 16:31, 'YOU believe'.

 

[Hammster]

You refuse to write about exactly the issue I was dealing with in Acts 16:31, 'YOU believe...'.

So please quit your eisegesis of what I wrote about this verse. Your red herring about getting into a logical order is eisegesis of what I wrote about Acts 16:31.

This is what happens when you impose your will on my theology. You got it wrong again. That is what you want Arminian theology to mean according to RT.

What did I write? 'This is why synergism is a misleading concept. Faith, repentance, regeneration-new birth, justification and conversion happen simultaneously - in my understanding. But that's not how you see it in RT'.

Please quit your misrepresentation of what I wrote and engaging in your eisegesis of what I stated.

That's what you wrote. On one hand, everything happens simultaneously. A few posts later, you say faith precedes regeneration.

No eisegesis on my part.

 

[Hammster]

Read Acts 16:31, 'YOU believe'.

What's your point?