"All"

[TSIBHOD]

What we suppose is unimportant, what the Bible says is.

Christ did not come to "give a chance" but "to save sinners". Christ's sacrifice doesn't make people saveable if only they'll do x, y or z but it actually affects salvation for those whom the Father gives to the Son.

We all had our 'chance' in Adam, and through him we are all under condemnation. Our 'chance' is already done for us we are "in sin from birth" and so show that Adam rightly represented us.

Thus God saves whom God wills because He is God.

I said I wasn't going to argue here.

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.

"There are few people who are more often in the wrong than those who can not endure to be so."
— Francois de La Rochefoucauld

 

[Jon_]

Can you tell us why God would feel constrained to offer a second chance to men ? Why would he want to ?

Why does he want to offer a second chance even to the elect?

He doesn't offer chances, He saves sinners.

God does not and cannot take chances.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I said I wasn't going to argue here.

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.

"There are few people who are more often in the wrong than those who can not endure to be so."
— Francois de La Rochefoucauld

I love la Rochefoucauld!

"If we had no faults of our own, we would not take such delight in the faults of others."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

What we suppose is unimportant, what the Bible says is.

Christ did not come to "give a chance" but "to save sinners". Christ's sacrifice doesn't make people saveable if only they'll do x, y or z but it actually affects salvation for those whom the Father gives to the Son.

We all had our 'chance' in Adam, and through him we are all under condemnation. Our 'chance' is already done for us we are "in sin from birth" and so show that Adam rightly represented us.

Thus God saves whom God wills because He is God.

I wonder... did we really have a chance?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.

I'll say this: if you're sure he's wrong, then you might want to prove it.

(It doesn't have to be here. Start a thread in GT or Soteriology.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TSIBHOD]

I'll say this: if you're sure he's wrong, then you might want to prove it.

(It doesn't have to be here. Start a thread in GT or Soteriology.)

I never said I was sure that he was wrong. I've just been trying to clear up some misrepresentations of Arminians. I haven't been trying to debate. And I do think he's wrong, but my mind is not closed. I continually search and see if what I believe may be wrong in this spot or that one, because all of us have blind spots.

And proving people wrong is overrated; most people just believe what they want to believe anyway. So I just try to stir up some thoughts when possible. Most people of any group get a certain thought that satisfies them, then close their mind to anything else.

The other thing that I try to do on this board is learn what others believe. And I guess I also like to refine my own beliefs. Sometimes, by arguing with someone, I can polish my own position. But I never really expect to convince anyone. I've had too many times where I was clearly right and the other person just abandoned the conversation or said something along the lines of, "I believe what I believe and that's that."

 

[TSIBHOD]

I love la Rochefoucauld!

Agreed. I have quite a number of quotations from him that I have harvested off of the Internet. Something like seventy, I think. And I only picked the best ones, although that was more than half of what I found, probably. (I also tried to pick the most eloquent version of any given quotation.)

Here's another good quotation, and one that fits into what I was trying to say here.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
— Albert Einstein

 

[TSIBHOD]

God does not and cannot take chances.

By the way, I never said that He does.

Giving someone a chance is different than taking a chance. God could give a person a chance while knowing what they would do, thus not taking a chance.

I just want you to think that I believe something that I don't.

 

[Lockheed]

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.

I've already done my 'thinking again', I was once an Arminian charismatic... but the Bible could support neither position. Again, what I think and what I suppose and what I feel is unimportant to what the Scriptures say.

Rather than suggesting I think again, why not present and defend a position?

 

[Jon_]

By the way, I never said that He does.

Giving someone a chance is different than taking a chance. God could give a person a chance while knowing what they would do, thus not taking a chance.

I just want you to think that I believe something that I don't.

Having preordained that very chance... it is no chance. Chance implies randomness, implies multiple possible outcomes. There is only ever one possible outcome with God; therefore, "chance" is not at all the correct term to use.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TSIBHOD]

I've already done my 'thinking again', I was once an Arminian charismatic... but the Bible could support neither position. Again, what I think and what I suppose and what I feel is unimportant to what the Scriptures say.

Rather than suggesting I think again, why not present and defend a position?

Just try to keep from thinking that you've "arrived." Maybe you had weak spots in your doctrine before, but if you've eliminated some, that doesn't mean that you couldn't still be wrong. You could even be wrong about your new beliefs. It could be that your old ones were better. Not all change in doctrine is progress--indeed, some is regress--but there can be no progress without change.

EDIT: Oh, and you might be using this kind of argument since you mentioned that you used to be an Arminian.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Having preordained that very chance... it is no chance. Chance implies randomness, implies multiple possible outcomes. There is only ever one possible outcome with God; therefore, "chance" is not at all the correct term to use.

Semantics.... Call it an "option" then. "Chance" is often used with an element of unpredictability, but it can also be used to mean "opportunity to either do something or not."

 

[Jon_]

Semantics.... Call it an "option" then. "Chance" is often used with an element of unpredictability, but it can also be used to mean "opportunity to either do something or not."

Contradiction. Whenever there are multiple possbile outcomes, there is an element of randomness. Nothing is random to God. Your position is indefensible, my friend.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

[TSIBHOD]

Contradiction. Whenever there are multiple possbile outcomes, there is an element of randomness. Nothing is random to God. Your position is indefensible, my friend.

*sigh* Let me try explaining this again. I never said anything about something being "random to God," now did I? And where did I say that there were "multiple possible outcomes"? God sets before people two choices. He puts them at a fork in the road. He knows which road that they will take. They have the choice of taking which ever one they want. They had a "chance" to take the other road, which ever one that was. I don't mean that taking the other road was something that might or might not have happened, and that God was guessing. God knew. What I mean is that they had the opportunity to take the other road if they had wanted to take it.

Call it an opportunity or an option if the word "chance" bothers you so much.

And just for fun:

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.​

—Frost

 

[Lockheed]

Just try to keep from thinking that you've "arrived."

This is silly. Should one doubt the doctrine of the Trinity because they're afraid of boasting of having "arrived"? How about the deity of Christ... oh, there's that pesky deity of Christ doctrine, maybe we should rethink it.

Maybe you had weak spots in your doctrine before, but if you've eliminated some, that doesn't mean that you couldn't still be wrong.

I eliminated none, if it were up to me, I'd still be in those false doctrines and wallowing in sin, but God in His graciousness promises to sanctify us in truth, His Word is truth.

You could even be wrong about your new beliefs. It could be that your old ones were better.

This is why Scripture must be the authority of what we believe... when one cannot support said doctrines from Scripture those doctrines should be discarded immediately.

Not all change in doctrine is progress--indeed, some is regress--but there can be no progress without change.

EDIT: Oh, and you might be using this kind of argument since you mentioned that you used to be an Arminian.

To the contrary, my argument is not valid because of me, or anything within me or that I did, but rather because it is founded on the Scriptures and the harmony therein and not on emotional appeal or philisophical non-sense.

 

[Jon_]

*sigh* Let me try explaining this again. I never said anything about something being "random to God," now did I?

Like I said, "chance, opportunity, choice" all imply a random element because a "chance, opportunity, choice" necessarily has alternative options.

And where did I say that there were "multiple possible outcomes"? God sets before people two choices.

Two is multiple. Multiple is more than one.

He puts them at a fork in the road. He knows which road that they will take. They have the choice of taking which ever one they want. They had a "chance" to take the other road, which ever one that was. I don't mean that taking the other road was something that might or might not have happened, and that God was guessing. God knew. What I mean is that they had the opportunity to take the other road if they had wanted to take it.

Mankind has no "chances, options, opportunities." We have our free will, which itself is predetermined. God can foresee precisely how we will react to everything that will happen. He is then free to permit our own natural response, or to interject his own will. Since God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make. They have already been preordained by God.

But even apart from his determination, he already knows precisely how we will respond in every situation. So you see that it is really impossible for him to give us a "chance," because no matter how many alternatives he puts in front of us, he always knows that we can only choose one and he always knows which one we will choose. The very act of him ordaining "options" for us and affirming or denying our will toward them dictates our choices for us.

Trying to argue that there is indeed a fork and that man is required to choose between the paths is complete vanity when it is clear that there is really only ever one possible choice for natural man. Humans will always choose the left fork to evil. Only God can lead us down the right path of righteousness.

Call it an opportunity or an option if the word "chance" bothers you so much.

All of these words mean the same thing. I don't have a problem with the language you're using, I have a problem with the conclusion at which you're arriving, viz. that we are ever posed with more than one "option" or alternatives to the necessary course of things as ordained by God.

And just for fun:

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
​

—Frost

I like Robert Frost, too.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TSIBHOD]

This is silly. Should one doubt the doctrine of the Trinity because they're afraid of boasting of having "arrived"? How about the deity of Christ... oh, there's that pesky deity of Christ doctrine, maybe we should rethink it.

All I can tell you is my opinion: major beliefs should stand firm; minor ones should be open to question.

I eliminated none, if it were up to me, I'd still be in those false doctrines and wallowing in sin, but God in His graciousness promises to sanctify us in truth, His Word is truth.

I'm sure that a number Arminians could also claim that God in His graciousness brought them out of Calvinism.

This is why Scripture must be the authority of what we believe... when one cannot support said doctrines from Scripture those doctrines should be discarded immediately.

People who claim to be in line with Scripture sometimes believe opposite things on issues. This brings us a point: many people think that they believe the Scripture when they don't. Just because you think your doctrine meshes with Scripture doesn't mean that it does, and that's why we should be open to changing our doctrine if it is shown to us that Scripture says something different. If you're determined that you're right, then you'll make the Scripture fit with your doctrine even if it doesn't.

 

[Jon_]

All I can tell you is my opinion: major beliefs should stand firm; minor ones should be open to question.

What qualifies as a "major belief"?

I'm sure that a number Arminians could also claim that God in His graciousness brought them out of Calvinism.

Only because they chose to cooperate with his grace, though.

People who claim to be in line with Scripture sometimes believe opposite things on issues. This brings us a point: many people think that they believe the Scripture when they don't. Just because you think your doctrine meshes with Scripture doesn't mean that it does, and that's why we should be open to changing our doctrine if it is shown to us that Scripture says something different. If you're determined that you're right, then you'll make the Scripture fit with your doctrine even if it doesn't.

This is why sound philosophical conclusions are so important. You can make Scripture say almost anything you want, which is why critical thinking and accurate deduction according to sound exegesis are so important. Calvinists can claim a sound, deductively provable doctrine, Arminians cannot.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TSIBHOD]

Like I said, "chance, opportunity, choice" all imply a random element because a "chance, opportunity, choice" necessarily has alternative options.

Two is multiple. Multiple is more than one.

Multiple options, yes; multiple possibilities from our perspective, yes; multiple possibilities from God's perspective, no, because God knows what will happen.

Since God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make. They have already been preordained by God.

Saying that we don't have any choices goes beyond what Calvinism necessitates. I'll give a quotation from a Reformed work. The author said that he holds "a traditional Reformed position with regard to questions of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, the extent of the atonement, and the question of predestination" (p. 16 in the work quoted below).

Scripture nowhere says that we are "free" in the sense of being outside of God's control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. [...] Nor does it say we are "free" in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God's power. But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free—we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make choices.
—Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, p. 331).​

You've said that "there aren't any choices for us to make," and Grudem said that it is erroneous to conclude that "we cannot really make choices." I don't know if your statement is within the bounds of Calvinism, but at least some Calvinists disagree with you.

 

[TSIBHOD]

What qualifies as a "major belief"?

Oh, the Nicene Creed type stuff.

Calvinists can claim a sound, deductively provable doctrine, Arminians cannot.

And Arminians would say the opposite.