Adam and eve and Arminian Thought

[Gamecock]

It just dawned on me.

Adam and Eve sought to become like God. That's why they ate of the fruit.

Genesis 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


They wanted to be in control.

Now, Calvinists will say that God is Sovereign in all things, including who is saved.

Arminians will deny that of God. They want to be in charge of their salvation. They deny the Sovereignty of God and in so doing so they attempt to elevate themselves to God-like status.

I know that is not what they will say, but isn't it the obvious conclusion??

 

[servant4ever]

Gamecock,

I do not want to be called any names, as I did in the Open Theism debate, but I am an Open Theist. Us Open Theists DO NOT claim we are gods. How do you explain that God wants all to be saved? It is clear that God does not want all to be saved, according to calvinists. God offers salvation to ALL MEN, and all we have to do is accept the free gift of eternal life.

 

[Gamecock]

Gamecock,

It is clear that God does not want all to be saved, according to calvinists. God offers salvation to ALL MEN, and all we have to do is accept the free gift of eternal life.

Give me a verse that shows God wants all to be saved....


Be greatful if you are Elect!

 

[servant4ever]

Gamecock,

1 Timothy 2:3-4 - God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV)

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV)

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)

I think these verses are clear that God wants all to be saved, that salvation is open to everybody, not just the "elect."

servant4ever

 

[Received]

Now, Calvinists will say that God is Sovereign in all things, including who is saved.

Arminians will deny that of God. They want to be in charge of their salvation. They deny the Sovereignty of God and in so doing so they attempt to elevate themselves to God-like status.

One extra point: Calvinists will deliberately misapprehend the idea of belief, even though scripture clearly teaches that belief is not a work:

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness..." -- Romans 4:5

Play on.

 

[Gamecock]

But where is free in that statement?

We must believe, what is the origin of that belief?

Not our own unregenerated hearts, nosiree bob!

 

[Reformationist]

I know that is not what they will say, but isn't it the obvious conclusion??

Yes.

God bless

 

[Received]

Arminians will deny that of God. They want to be in charge of their salvation. They deny the Sovereignty of God and in so doing so they attempt to elevate themselves to God-like status.

I know that is not what they will say, but isn't it the obvious conclusion??

Even though your conclusion rests on the fantastic evasion of the fact that the acceptance or rejection of a gift does not make the gift giver any more or less powerful than he is prior to the offering of the gift. To think so is to give power to the receiver for the existence of the gift, which is clearly silly silly. But, Calvinists here that openly refuse to realize this seem to like pretenses, and fancies.

When we grow up, perhaps we can talk of real sovereignty: like the fact that it reveals greater power to be loved freely than to force one to love (which is really a sickening oxymoron) -- precisely a point that non-Calvinists assert over and over again, to the negligence and ignorance of the Calvinist crowd. Non-Calvinists don't like a weak God; thus, they refuse to accept the Calvinist interpretation.

Thus, while such Calvinists claim to be preaching the truth, those who oppose them are not asleep, but quite awake, waiting patiently for the former group to open their eyes, make a little stretch, breathe the free air, and realize where they are.

 

[MizDoulos]

A reminder to all: Before this discussion turns personal, let's remember that every member has his own viewpoint on the subject, and each should be respected and treated with kindness. Furthermore, it is likely that no one will change anyone else's mind on particular doctrinal issues such as salvation. Therefore, if you cannot respond kindly and with civility, please move on to another thread or forum.

Consider this an unofficial warning to all who participate. Warnings will be issued for rule violations.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[noflame][notroll]

 

[BBAS 64]

It just dawned on me.

Adam and Eve sought to become like God. That's why they ate of the fruit.

Genesis 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


They wanted to be in control.

Now, Calvinists will say that God is Sovereign in all things, including who is saved.

Arminians will deny that of God. They want to be in charge of their salvation. They deny the Sovereignty of God and in so doing so they attempt to elevate themselves to God-like status.

I know that is not what they will say, but isn't it the obvious conclusion??

Good Day Gamecock

Never thought of that in that fashion. Thanks for the "Brain Food"

BBAS

 

[frumanchu]

Even though your conclusion rests on the fantastic evasion of the fact that the acceptance or rejection of a gift does not make the gift giver any more or less powerful than he is prior to the offering of the gift. To think so is to give power to the receiver for the existence of the gift, which is clearly silly silly. But, Calvinists here that openly refuse to realize this seem to like pretenses, and fancies.

When we grow up, perhaps we can talk of real sovereignty: like the fact that it reveals greater power to be loved freely than to force one to love (which is really a sickening oxymoron) -- precisely a point that non-Calvinists assert over and over again, to the negligence and ignorance of the Calvinist crowd. Non-Calvinists don't like a weak God; thus, they refuse to accept the Calvinist interpretation.

Amusing assertions, friend. However, the Reformed position does not maintain in the slightest that God "forces" anyone to love Him. Quite they contrary, the Reformed position has man accepting Christ of his own 'free' will. What you fail to account for is the utter inclination and disposition of the unregenerate man towards sin. Unregenerate man at the very core of his being is a hedonist. He is spiritually dead. He is in open rebellion against his creator. He has been overcome by his own sin and is a slave to it. God need not force men to love Him. He need only free their hearts from bondage and they come running to Him. One who demands God be universal in the application of such a gracious act has no sense whatsoever of the holiness, righteousness or justice of God and in essence denies that they were truly deserving of damnation in the first place. Such is born from a self-serving redefinition of the love of God.

Thus, while such Calvinists claim to be preaching the truth, those who oppose them are not asleep, but quite awake, waiting patiently for the former group to open their eyes, make a little stretch, breathe the free air, and realize where they are.

I would be hard pressed to determine if the present moral plight of our Western culture with respect to the 'mindset of victimization' is the reason for the rapid spread of semi-Pelagian theology, or the result of it. Either way, the end is the same.

May the motto soon ring true again: Post Tenebras Lux!

 

[Ben johnson]

Doesn't Paul worry about us being deceived and falling from salvation, just as EVE did??? (2Cor11:3)

 

[Reformationist]

Doesn't Paul worry about us being deceived and falling from salvation, just as EVE did??? (2Cor11:3)

No. Paul doesn't say, or allude to, anything about "falling from salvation." Being deceived, yes. Falling from salvation, no.

 

[Chosen210]

1 Timothy 2:3-4 - God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV)

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV)

A known point is that Paul the apostle is a jew, i dont think anyone will argue that. But when He says "all men" he is saying that salvation is not restricted to the jews but to all men. Which includes gentiles.
The second Peter 3:9 is somewhat dificult. There are three wills of God. God's sovereign will, were anything He commands to happen, happens. When God created light there was light. The second will is the will of His laws. It's his will that we obey the laws, and if we do not obey the laws we are punished for that. The other will is God's disposition. He does rejoice in the perishing of a human, but He does it because it is good to punish evil. Think of it as a judge sentencing his son to death. If you line the first will up, then all will be saved, which is universalism, and would stand in direct contradiction with all those other verses that are against universalism. The second will would be a lot of nonsense. If we do not obey His will in not perishing, than He will perish us for perishing. The third will lines up quite nicely in seeing that God does not rejoice in the death and damnation of the wicked. But another factor that we have to see is that Peter likes to refer to "us" (use the NKJV for the us) as the elect, and thus saying that none of the elect will perish which gives another strong verse for Predestination.

 

[Ben johnson]

No. Paul doesn't say, or allude to, anything about "falling from salvation." Being deceived, yes. Falling from salvation, no.

"I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ."

Seems that you are confined to two choices in your perspective, Don:
1. Fallen-from-pure-and-simple-devotion-to-Jesus, is still SAVED.
2. You can't REALLY be "led astray", he's just being "hypothetical" but he didn't MEAN it COULD happen.

Do you lean towards either of these?

PS: You say, "be deceived but not fall". Wonder if you take 1Tim4:1 and 2Pet3:17 and Col2:8 as "fallen-from-steadfastness/captive-to-empty-philosopy-rather-than-Jesus". pr "fallen-from-faith-by-deceitful-demonic-doctrines, as "NEVERTHELESS STILL SAVED"?

 

[Received]

Amusing assertions, friend. However, the Reformed position does not maintain in the slightest that God "forces" anyone to love Him. Quite they contrary, the Reformed position has man accepting Christ of his own 'free' will. What you fail to account for is the utter inclination and disposition of the unregenerate man towards sin. Unregenerate man at the very core of his being is a hedonist. He is spiritually dead. He is in open rebellion against his creator. He has been overcome by his own sin and is a slave to it. God need not force men to love Him. He need only free their hearts from bondage and they come running to Him. One who demands God be universal in the application of such a gracious act has no sense whatsoever of the holiness, righteousness or justice of God and in essence denies that they were truly deserving of damnation in the first place. Such is born from a self-serving redefinition of the love of God.

Fru, the perspective of sin you have used here as an argument against mine is very clearly -- from past responses -- something we do not agree on. One reason by me would be that it is seriuosly making God look the weak one with every single human being in the history of the world equally rebelling against Him in his own power, devoid of any preestablished sinful nature that obscures his true conception of Him. That the "condemnation" refers to condemnation before the law, not immediate reason to be worthy of an eternal Hell upon existence, but only upon obstinate rejection of the contingency of repentance (Romans 2:5). This is the paramount reason in my thinking, but of course this isn't agree on, which is fine.

Moreover, to claim that we accept Him by our free will according to the calvinist setting seems strangely invalid. The very term "total depravity" implies that we cannot accept Him in our own power given our nature; hence, the only way God is going to get us is if He changes our desires involuntarily from what they were, to what He has them that we may seek Him, which is precisely contrary to any notion of human freedom. Again, people may not agree with this, and that is fine.

And finally, my entire use of the word "many" held the hope that this would be towards only those calvinists who propose such condescending attacks as have started this thread -- those who hold the illogical claim that we work our own salvation in accepting or rejecting His gift --, and not all in particular, which would -- I would hope -- include yourself.

Good day.

 

[Reformationist]

"I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ."

Seems that you are confined to two choices in your perspective, Don:
1. Fallen-from-pure-and-simple-devotion-to-Jesus, is still SAVED.
2. You can't REALLY be "led astray", he's just being "hypothetical" but he didn't MEAN it COULD happen.

Do you lean towards either of these?

PS: You say, "be deceived but not fall". Wonder if you take 1Tim4:1 and 2Pet3:17 and Col2:8 as "fallen-from-steadfastness/captive-to-empty-philosopy-rather-than-Jesus". pr "fallen-from-faith-by-deceitful-demonic-doctrines, as "NEVERTHELESS STILL SAVED"?

I think it depends on context. In the 2 Cor. passage I think it's a warning to guard ourselves lest we fall into sin. Falling into sin does not mean ceasing to be saved. So, if one is saved then they will still be saved. That's the majesty of God's mercy.

God bless

 

[frumanchu]

Doesn't Paul worry about us being deceived and falling from salvation, just as EVE did??? (2Cor11:3)

I'm sorry. Maybe your NAS footnotes lead you to believe that falling from salvation was in view, but all the translations I have say nothing of the sort.

"But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." - 2 Cor 11:3 (NKJV)

How did the serpent deceive Eve? He did so by taking the Word of God and twisting/distorting it ("Hath God said...?"). Likewise, Paul is concerned about the false teachers twisting and distorting the gospel. Why does he express the concern? Verse 4 tells us...he fears that, when they come preaching another Jesus, pushing another spirit, and proclaiming a different gospel, that the believers will put up with it!

This has been a consistent theme in Paul's admonitions...that they have allowed worldly, false teaching to enter the church and have gotten to the point where they no longer deal correctly with it (1 Cor 5:2). You are more than reaching in declaring that Paul is indicating people losing salvation in 2 Cor 11:3

 

[Ben johnson]

Falling into sin does not mean ceasing to be saved. So, if one is saved then they will still be saved. That's the majesty of God's mercy.

Here is a "break" in understanding between you and me. What does, "falling into sin" mean to you? An occasional sin, which is repented promptly? It would have to be that, because I don't think you would go against Jesus ("No good tree produces bad fruit"), or Paul ("Those who practice these things will NOT inherit the kingdom"), or John ("do not be deceived, he who practices righteousness IS righteous, he who practices unrighteousness is of the devil; by this the children of God and children of the devil are exposed...").

But Paul here, says "phtheiro-CORRUPTED" --- Strong's says, "corrupted, destroyed, perished" --- can such a one still be saved??? I don't see how this can be viewed as "only a little-stumble but they'll repent and ABIDE" --- Paul seems to be saying "corrupted from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." All that OSAS is left with here, is to try to make it, "hyperbole/hypothetical it can't REALLY happen Paul didn't MEAN it..."

 

[Ben johnson]

Likewise, Paul is concerned about the false teachers twisting and distorting the gospel. Why does he express the concern? Verse 4 tells us...he fears that, when they come preaching another Jesus, pushing another spirit, and proclaiming a different gospel, that the believers will put up with it!

The "Kalos-Anechomai" expresses Paul's hope that they "ENDURE-SUSTAIN-hold-oneself-up/erect". How does this accomodate OSAS?

This is rather, mirroring passages like 2Jn1:7-9, that says "watch yourselves against antichrists/deceivers, that you not go too far and not abide in Jesus' teachings"...