Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[kangaroodort]

I dont understand what your saying here, my arminian friend, can you explain more simpler

I am not sure I can. The argument is that God should not have created those who He foreknew would reject Him. But if God did not create them, then that falsifies His foreknowledge of such person and the free choice to reject the Gospel. Why? Because there is nothing to foreknow. There will never be such a "person" and there will never be a rejection. The person will never exist. You can't have foreknowledge of a "person" who will never exist or what a person who will never exist to do anything would freely do. I am out of time for tonight. Here is a short post that might help more: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ents-regarding-free-agency-and-foreknowledge/

 

[mikedsjr]

Where is the good news in telling dead sinners that they can be saved if they do something that they cannot do? It would be like preaching in a graveyard.

Evertime you preach to people who hate God, you are preaching to the graveyard.

Lazarus Come forth.

Of course, the Baptist view is a bit skewed on God's saving power through water

 

[kangaroodort]

Evertime you preach to people who hate God, you are preaching to the graveyard.

Lazarus Come forth

OK, last comment tonight. The use of Lazarus to illustrate the Calvinist correlation between the inability of a physical corpse and what it means to be spiritually dead is completely contrived (the story of Jesus raising Lazarus is not an object lesson on regeneration preceding faith, nor was it intended to be). And it is the opposite of what Jesus says in John 5:24-25,

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

So according to Jesus, can the dead hear or not? Jesus says the dead will hear unto life. You say the dead must be made alive before they can hear. Jesus says the dead "hear". You say the dead cannot hear, only those who God makes alive can hear. But if that is the case then Jesus is wrong to say the dead hear. He should have said the living hear. Any way you cut it, your use of Lazurus as a prooftext for the bizarre Calvinist understanding of "dead in sin" equating to the inability of a corpse to do anything (never mind that spiritually dead people sin, resist the Holy Spirit and reject the Gospel, things corpses can't do), is in direct conflict with Jesus teaching that the dead will hear unto life.

 

[kangaroodort]

Evertime you preach to people who hate God, you are preaching to the graveyard.

Lazarus Come forth.

Of course, the Baptist view is a bit skewed on God's saving power through water

For more detail see here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/

 

[mikedsjr]

OK, last comment tonight. The use of Lazarus to illustrate the Calvinist correlation between the inability of a physical corpse and what it means to be spiritually dead is completely contrived (the story of Jesus raising Lazarus is not an object lesson on regeneration preceding faith, nor was it intended to be). And it is the opposite of what Jesus says in John 5:24-25,

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

So according to Jesus, can the dead hear or not? Jesus says the dead will hear unto life. You say the dead must be made alive before they can hear. Jesus says the dead "hear". You say the dead cannot hear, only those who God makes alive can hear. But if that is the case then Jesus is wrong to say the dead hear. He should have said the living hear. Any way you cut it, your use of Lazurus as a prooftext for the bizarre Calvinist understanding of "dead in sin" equating to the inability of a corpse to do anything (never mind that spiritually dead people sin, resist the Holy Spirit and reject the Gospel, things corpses can't do), is in direct conflict with Jesus teaching that the dead will hear unto life.

Jesus said the dead hear the voice of the son of God AND live.

John 5:25

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

 

[twin1954]

OK, last comment tonight. The use of Lazarus to illustrate the Calvinist correlation between the inability of a physical corpse and what it means to be spiritually dead is completely contrived (the story of Jesus raising Lazarus is not an object lesson on regeneration preceding faith, nor was it intended to be). And it is the opposite of what Jesus says in John 5:24-25,

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

So according to Jesus, can the dead hear or not? Jesus says the dead will hear unto life. You say the dead must be made alive before they can hear. Jesus says the dead "hear". You say the dead cannot hear, only those who God makes alive can hear. But if that is the case then Jesus is wrong to say the dead hear. He should have said the living hear. Any way you cut it, your use of Lazurus as a prooftext for the bizarre Calvinist understanding of "dead in sin" equating to the inability of a corpse to do anything (never mind that spiritually dead people sin, resist the Holy Spirit and reject the Gospel, things corpses can't do), is in direct conflict with Jesus teaching that the dead will hear unto life.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

According to your view the word "has" is in the future tense. HMM. Well I guess we will have to adjust all the tenses in the Bible to Fit your theology.

The fact is that it is in the past tense and definitely tells us that those who believe already have life. We have more than that to consider as well.
(1Jn 5:1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Look at this verse in the Greek and you will find that the words "is born of God" is past tense not future or even present tense. Oh wait that would mean that those who believe are already born of God.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

I am not sure I can. The argument is that God should not have created those who He foreknew would reject Him. But if God did not create them, then that falsifies His foreknowledge of such person and the free choice to reject the Gospel. Why? Because there is nothing to foreknow. There will never be such a "person" and there will never be a rejection. The person will never exist. You can't have foreknowledge of a "person" who will never exist or what a person who will never exist to do anything would freely do. I am out of time for tonight. Here is a short post that might help more: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ents-regarding-free-agency-and-foreknowledge/

So your saying, why did God create someone who he foreknew would reject him? - But that is answered is Scripture, please see below: Romans 9:10-24

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

a) Not by works but by him who calls
b) Does the potter not have the right to some for special purposes (elect/objects of mercy) and common use (Objects prepared for destruction) non-believers

 

[royal priest]

I hold to what is called "Conditional Election" that God chose to elect those he foreknew would believe. Election is conditional upon faith in Christ.

How does that work out exactly? God looked down the corridor of eternity to the time mankind existed in search of those who would choose to love Him? Then, in discovering those who loved Him, He chose to make them the object of His saving love?

 

[twin1954]

How does that work out exactly? God looked down the corridor of eternity to the time mankind existed in search of those who would choose to love Him? Then, in discovering those who loved Him, He chose to make them the object of His saving love?

If that is the case then God learns. If He learns then open theism is the outcome and He isn't really God.

 

[royal priest]

If that is the case then God learns. If He learns then open theism is the outcome and He isn't really God.

Exactly. Versus, 1 John 4:19.

 

[kangaroodort]

Jesus said the dead hear the voice of the son of God AND live.

John 5:25

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Wow, this is really grasping. It is clear from the language that living results from hearing. Those who hear "will live" as a result of hearing. And even if we tried to force it to say what you seem to want it to say, the fact remains that Jesus says the "dead will hear" which you say is not possible based on your Calvinist presuppositions. Please see the post I linked to earlier for more detail. The comments section of that thread would be good to check out too as there is a lot of interaction regarding the meaning of this text with Calvinists.

 

[kangaroodort]

So your saying, why did God create someone who he foreknew would reject him?

No, I am not saying that. I was responding to someone who was asking that question and suggesting that God could have just "not created" people He foreknew would reject Him. Please look carefully at the comments I was responding to.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

No, I am not saying that. I was responding to someone who was asking that question and suggesting that God could have just "not created" people He foreknew would reject Him. Please look carefully at the comments I was responding to.

Can you explain your position on election please

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

OK, last comment tonight. The use of Lazarus to illustrate the Calvinist correlation between the inability of a physical corpse and what it means to be spiritually dead is completely contrived (the story of Jesus raising Lazarus is not an object lesson on regeneration preceding faith, nor was it intended to be). And it is the opposite of what Jesus says in John 5:24-25,

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

So according to Jesus, can the dead hear or not? Jesus says the dead will hear unto life. You say the dead must be made alive before they can hear. Jesus says the dead "hear". You say the dead cannot hear, only those who God makes alive can hear. But if that is the case then Jesus is wrong to say the dead hear. He should have said the living hear. Any way you cut it, your use of Lazurus as a prooftext for the bizarre Calvinist understanding of "dead in sin" equating to the inability of a corpse to do anything (never mind that spiritually dead people sin, resist the Holy Spirit and reject the Gospel, things corpses can't do), is in direct conflict with Jesus teaching that the dead will hear unto life.

Can`t argue with you there, John 5:25 does seem to support spiritually dead being able to hear the world of God - Can some of my Calvinist friends help me here

 

[kangaroodort]

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

According to your view the word "has" is in the future tense. HMM. Well I guess we will have to adjust all the tenses in the Bible to Fit your theology.

The fact is that it is in the past tense and definitely tells us that those who believe already have life. We have more than that to consider as well.
(1Jn 5:1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Look at this verse in the Greek and you will find that the words "is born of God" is past tense not future or even present tense. Oh wait that would mean that those who believe are already born of God.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."

According to your view the word "has" is in the future tense. HMM. Well I guess we will have to adjust all the tenses in the Bible to Fit your theology.

The fact is that it is in the past tense and definitely tells us that those who believe already have life. We have more than that to consider as well.
(1Jn 5:1) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Look at this verse in the Greek and you will find that the words "is born of God" is past tense not future or even present tense. Oh wait that would mean that those who believe are already born of God.

No it doesn't mean that at all. It means that the one who is [presently] believing (believing is a present participle) has been [which is perfect, not "past"- perfect refers to something that happened in the past with continuing results up to the time of the speaker, and usually the emphasis is on the present aspect, not the past] born of Him. This is true even if believing precedes being born of God. In fact the Greek says that the participle relates to the main verb in such a way that either it denotes contemporaneous action, or the participle takes priority (which means the believing comes first). It cannot be construed in such a way that the main verb takes priority. So the Greek actually works against your view. But even if it shows contemporaneous action, that does not tell us which comes "logically first" which is what the ordo salutis deals with. And in just a few verses down we have a passage with the exact same verbal construction that clearly puts the participle logically first:

"Anyone who does not believe [present participle] God has made [perfect verb] him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His Son." (1 John 5:10)

Here we have the same construction and it is clear that the act of "not believing" (present participle) precedes and is the reason for making God out to be a liar ("has made"- perfect).

And the fact remains that Jesus says the dead will hear unto life, while you say the dead cannot hear and one must first be given life to hear. You are spinning your wheels. Where will you go now? Maybe John 1:12-13? I am looking forward to it.

 

[kangaroodort]

Can you explain your position on election please

I hold to the corporate view as articulated by scholars like Dr. Brian Abasciano, William Klein and Robert Shank. If you want to understand the corporate view, here is a good place to start: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/

 

[kangaroodort]

If that is the case then God learns. If He learns then open theism is the outcome and He isn't really God.

In the simple foreknowledge view (which holds that God has exhaustive foreknowledge) God does not learn anything. He knows all things from eternity, so there is never a "time" in which God gains knowledge (or learns). This is an oft repeated Calvinist canard, but it does not rightly represent the view. But in Calvinism God's foreknowledge is based on His decree. That means that the only way God can know anything is because He decreed it to happen and will infallibly bring it about in time in accordance with His eternal decree. That means for God to foreknow our sin or sinful thoughts He must have decreed those sinful thoughts and actions and then irresistibly brings them about in time, which makes God the originator of every sinful thought, motive or action. That's not good. Really, Calvinists have more in common with Open Theists then Classical Arminians. For more on that, see here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...-calvinism-and-why-you-should-be-an-arminian/

 

[Job8]

Hi my Arminian friends! I was just wondering, why are you an Arminian?

I don't believe most non-Calvinists know too much about Arminius or Arminianism. Some even spell it as Armenian, as though Noah's Ark is somehow connected. It is more a matter of rejecting TULIP as outlandish than anything else. The more pertinent issue is "Why do you believe that TULIP contradicts the true Gospel?"

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

I don't believe most non-Calvinists know too much about Arminius or Arminianism. Some even spell it as Armenian, as though Noah's Ark is somehow connected. It is more a matter of rejecting TULIP as outlandish than anything else. The more pertinent issue is "Why do you believe that TULIP contradicts the true Gospel?"

hahaa Im Armenian, but im not Arminian.

 

[Job8]

hahaa Im Armenian, but im not Arminian.

Andy,
We now need a fragment from Noah's Ark to present to the Calvinists. That will help them to understand that we must take God's Word for what it says, not what we hope it says.