Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[royal priest]

Hmm. I suppose I could agree with that. Like I said, my current beliefs on perserverance are subject to change as I do more study XD

When we refer to election, please understand that we in no way are saying that God does any violence to the will of man. He does not force anyone against his will. Rather, God works upon a person who was previously unwilling, in such a way that He makes them willing. They were at one time enemies of God and children of wrath, but God changes their heart and impresses their minds changing them. A favorite hymn expressed it well:


’Tis not that I did choose Thee,
For Lord, that could not be;
This heart would still refuse Thee,
Hadst Thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old Thou hast ordained me,
That I should live to Thee.

’Twas sov’reign mercy called me
And taught my op’ning mind;
The world had else enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.
My heart owns none before Thee,
For Thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love Thee,
Thou must have loved me first.
--Josiah Condor, 1836

 

[Leevo]

When we refer to election, please understand that we in no way are saying that God does any violence to the will of man. He does not force anyone against his will. Rather, God works upon a person who was previously unwilling, in such a way that He makes them willing. They were at one time enemies of God and children of wrath, but God changes their heart and impresses their minds changing them. A favorite hymn expressed it well:


’Tis not that I did choose Thee,
For Lord, that could not be;
This heart would still refuse Thee,
Hadst Thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old Thou hast ordained me,
That I should live to Thee.

’Twas sov’reign mercy called me
And taught my op’ning mind;
The world had else enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.
My heart owns none before Thee,
For Thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love Thee,
Thou must have loved me first.
--Josiah Condor, 1836

I understand the doctrine of election as taught by Calvinism, I think I have used poor wording when I say that God forces it... I believe what you say to an extent, where I would disagree is whether or not the man, once willing could still be unwilling. You would say no because he is not elect, I would say Yes because God allows the person to choose.

 

[royal priest]

I understand the doctrine of election as taught by Calvinism, I think I have used poor wording when I say that God forces it... I believe what you say to an extent, where I would disagree is whether or not the man, once willing could still be unwilling. You would say no because he is not elect, I would say Yes because God allows the person to choose.

Actually, I would say no because he is elect. Reason being is because election is part of what has been called, the golden chain of salvation, in reference to Romans 8:30.

 

[Leevo]

Actually, I would say no because he is elect. Reason being is because election is part of what has been called, the golden chain of salvation, in reference to Romans 8:30.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in election. However I disagree with the Calvinist version of it. I believe God elects based upon his foreknowledge, versus the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, based solely on God's choice. This doctrine along with Limited Atonement is what keeps me away from Calvinism. Otherwise Arminianism agrees with Total Depravity and some form of perseverance of the saints.

 

[twin1954]

Once again we are off on a Calvinistic tangent. That is not the issue. Please read the Scripture -- the words of Christ Himself -- that says that the whole world might be saved, and agree that on that basis Limited Atonement is a FALSE DOCTRINE. Then we can address all the other tangents.

OK you want to address the words of Christ on who He died for do you? The question is will you believe what He said?
(Joh 10:11) I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

(Joh 10:14) I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

(Joh 10:15) As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

(Joh 10:16) And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
(Joh 10:17) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

(Joh 10:18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


(Joh 10:26) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

(Joh 10:27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

(Joh 10:28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

(Joh 10:29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Now this is the Lord Jesus speaking in John 10. Yo0u might notice that all that I have given you is from the same chapter.
The Lord clearly tells us that He gives His life for the sheep. He never once says that He gives His life for the sheep and the goats.

Also you may notice that later on in the chapter that He tells some folks that they do not believe because they are not His sheep. So my question for you is if He lays down His life for the sheep as He says He does and then tells some people that they are not His sheep did He lay down His life for them? What saith the Scriptures? Do you believe what they say. I haven't taken anything out of context so you can't accuse me of that can you.

Another Calvinistic dodge. Please read the Scripture and either agree with Christ or disagree with Him. No need for red herrings. And notice you did not capitalize God, which is an indicator of how lightly you esteem the words of Christ. And to claim that I misuse John 3:16 is so laughable, it cannot even be addressed. Which is another Calvinistic dodge.

I not only read the Scriptures but I told you exactly what they said in their context. The reason that I didn't capitalize the word god is because the pigmy god you put forth isn't God.

I not only made the claim that you misuse the Scriptures I showed you how you were doing it. You will not answer because you simply can't and keep hold of your theology of man centered religion. If you could actually answer you would.

 

[royal priest]

Don't get me wrong, I believe in election. However I disagree with the Calvinist version of it. I believe God elects based upon his foreknowledge, versus the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, based solely on God's choice. This doctrine along with Limited Atonement is what keeps me away from Calvinism. Otherwise Arminianism agrees with Total Depravity and some form of perseverance of the saints.

Would you say that God's work in salvation is exclusive to the ministry of Christ? If so, is that exclusive to Christ's earthly ministry or does it go beyond that? The reason I'm asking is because I'm curious of the extend to which you view God's work in a man's salvation.

 

[twin1954]

Don't get me wrong, I believe in election. However I disagree with the Calvinist version of it. I believe God elects based upon his foreknowledge, versus the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, based solely on God's choice. This doctrine along with Limited Atonement is what keeps me away from Calvinism. Otherwise Arminianism agrees with Total Depravity and some form of perseverance of the saints.

Can I ask you a few honest questions?

When God chose the Hebrews over all the other nations of the earth why did He say that He did it?

Why would you not have a problem with God choosing the Jews in the Old Testament but not having a chosen people in the New?

When the High Priest went into the Holy Of Holies did any of the Caananites, Hittites or Jebusites or any other nation have a part in that atonement?

If the atonement there is a picture, as we are told it is in Hebrews, what did it signify?

 

[Leevo]

Can I ask you a few honest questions?

When God chose the Hebrews over all the other nations of the earth why did He say that He did it?

Why would you not have a problem with God choosing the Jews in the Old Testament but not having a chosen people in the New?

When the High Priest went into the Holy Of Holies did any of the Caananites, Hittites or Jebusites or any other nation have a part in that atonement?

If the atonement there is a picture, as we are told it is in Hebrews, what did it signify?

God does have a chosen people in the New Testament, like I said I agree that there is an elect. Where we differ is who that is. I think it is the believers that God foreknew would believe and so he foreordained them to eternal life. I gather you still don't grasp that I do believe in an elect of God, I just disagree with you on how they were chosen.

 

[Leevo]

Would you say that God's work in salvation is exclusive to the ministry of Christ? If so, is that exclusive to Christ's earthly ministry or does it go beyond that? The reason I'm asking is because I'm curious of the extend to which you view God's work in a man's salvation.

God gets all the credit in mans salvation. Man gets zero credit. The only thing a man does is believe. Ultimately though, God still gets the credit for that for being the one to grant the ability to man in the first place.

 

[twin1954]

God does have a chosen people in the New Testament, like I said I agree that there is an elect. Where we differ is who that is. I think it is the believers that God foreknew would believe and so he foreordained them to eternal life. I gather you still don't grasp that I do believe in an elect of God, I just disagree with you on how they were chosen.

Oh I get that you believe in an elect because anyone who actually reads the Scriptures cannot deny that there are an elect in the New Testament. My question was as to why they were chosen. That is why I asked the first question. The second was in order for you to see that there is no difference. The last two were about particular redemption, I hate the term limited atonement. I would still like for you to answer the other questions if you would please.

 

[twin1954]

God gets all the credit in mans salvation. Man gets zero credit. The only thing a man does is believe. Ultimately though, God still gets the credit for that for being the one to grant the ability to man in the first place.

That simply can't be true though can it? If God looked down through time and foreknew who would believe and then chose them based on that foreknowledge and then in time enabled them to believe they still did something that those who are damned didn't. They are still the ones who made the difference between whether they are saved or damned. They then have a reason to boast don't they? Your theology breaks down at that point every time because it is always man who makes the difference between being saved and being damned.

 

[Leevo]

Oh I get that you believe in an elect because anyone who actually reads the Scriptures cannot deny that there are an elect in the New Testament. My question was as to why they were chosen. That is why I asked the first question. The second was in order for you to see that there is no difference. The last two were about particular redemption, I hate the term limited atonement. I would still like for you to answer the other questions if you would please.

Ah, okay. Sure!

Can I ask you a few honest questions?

When God chose the Hebrews over all the other nations of the earth why did He say that He did it?

Why would you not have a problem with God choosing the Jews in the Old Testament but not having a chosen people in the New?

When the High Priest went into the Holy Of Holies did any of the Caananites, Hittites or Jebusites or any other nation have a part in that atonement?

If the atonement there is a picture, as we are told it is in Hebrews, what did it signify?

1) God chose Israel because he loved them, and to keep the oath he swore.

2) I don't know. I believe there is a chosen people in the New Testament so... I just disagree with the terms on how they were chosen...

3) No

4) I assume you are getting at an elect here, but I don't know entirely what you mean.

 

[Leevo]

That simply can't be true though can it? If God looked down through time and foreknew who would believe and then chose them based on that foreknowledge and then in time enabled them to believe they still did something that those who are damned didn't. They are still the ones who made the difference between whether they are saved or damned. They then have a reason to boast don't they? Your theology breaks down at that point every time because it is always man who makes the difference between being saved and being damned.

To quote a fellow Arminian:

"I just do not and cannot buy into the argument that because we freely accept Christ that therefore we performed a meritorious work for which we could boast. If a man comes up to me and offers to give me 5 billion dollars unconditionally, and I *choose* of my own free will to accept the money, could I boast about becoming rich? Would I be able to take credit for the subsequent mansion I would live in? Would it not be foolish in fact to think that I did anything to *earn* the money just because I said "yes" and had it within my power to say "no?"

Let's up the analogy. What if I couldn't accept the money because my hands were bound and my mouth was taped shut. The man would have to untie me and remove the tape in order to enable me to even say yes. This is what God's prevenient grace does people. Without God's prevenient grace, no one would choose to accept Christ as savior. Moreover, if Jesus hadn't died, there'd be no salvation to receive anyway. Jesus did the atoning and The Holy Spirit did the enabling and drawing. If they did neither of those things, I wouldn't be saved. God did all the work to get me the gift, all I did was accept it. I have nothing to boast over."



Also a good response to this topic from another Arminian: http://yieldtogod.org/pride-in-humilty/4591053123

 

[98cwitr]

Let's further that analogy too. What stipulations come with accepting the money? I've got 5 billion dollars because I said "Sure...I'll take that! Thanks for untying me!" But what else must occur now that I have accepted the cash?

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

As far as I understand Arminian theology, man cannot choose until they hear the Gospel, God moves on them at that point. If they never hear the gospel, then no, they are still under total depravity...

The gift is offered to everyone of all time and all places, the world. Why wouldn't God still offer salvation to those he knows will deny it. He still wants them to be saved, but ultimately they never will be...

Leevo:

I got saved without hearing the Gospel, I did not know the Gospel 1%, and I got saved, converted and filled with His Spirit.

6 months after I got saved, I started attending a Baptist Church, and the Baptist Pastor kept asking me are you sure you never heard the Gospel? I told him I never did, and he explained the Gospel, and I was shocked.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Can I ask you a few honest questions?

When God chose the Hebrews over all the other nations of the earth why did He say that He did it?

Why would you not have a problem with God choosing the Jews in the Old Testament but not having a chosen people in the New?

When the High Priest went into the Holy Of Holies did any of the Caananites, Hittites or Jebusites or any other nation have a part in that atonement?

If the atonement there is a picture, as we are told it is in Hebrews, what did it signify?

Wow! Amazing point!

 

[Job8]

When God chose the Hebrews over all the other nations of the earth why did He say that He did it?

Please note that the main purpose of choosing Israel was to bring Messiah to the world:
Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:4,5).

Why would you not have a problem with God choosing the Jews in the Old Testament but not having a chosen people in the New?

1. If "chosen people" meant chosen for salvation then EVERY JEW WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED at the coming of Christ. But in fact, the majority of Jews rejected Him. So there goes your theory of election.

2. If God were choosing men to be saved in the New Testament, HE WOULD CHOOSE ALL TO BE SAVED as He tells us in His Word (1 Tim:2:1-4).

When the High Priest went into the Holy Of Holies did any of the Caananites, Hittites or Jebusites or any other nation have a part in that atonement?

Actually no Gentile was shut out of Israel, if you will kindly read the OT. Indeed "the strangers" were to be welcomed by the Israelities if they exercised faith in Yahweh Elohim.

If the atonement there is a picture, as we are told it is in Hebrews, what did it signify?

As already pointed out with many Scriptures, the Lamb of God took away the sin of the world, Christ tasted death for every man, and Jesus is the PROPITIATION FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD (1 Jn 2:1,2): My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Calvinistic doctrine is actually a perversion of the truth, and if limited atonement is exposed as a false teaching (as shown above), then the whole edifice crumbles.

 

[twin1954]

Please note that the main purpose of choosing Israel was to bring Messiah to the world:
Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:4,5).

1. If "chosen people" meant chosen for salvation then EVERY JEW WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED at the coming of Christ. But in fact, the majority of Jews rejected Him. So there goes your theory of election.

2. If God were choosing men to be saved in the New Testament, HE WOULD CHOOSE ALL TO BE SAVED as He tells us in His Word (1 Tim:2:1-4).

Actually no Gentile was shut out of Israel, if you will kindly read the OT. Indeed "the strangers" were to be welcomed by the Israelities if they exercised faith in Yahweh Elohim.

As already pointed out with many Scriptures, the Lamb of God took away the sin of the world, Christ tasted death for every man, and Jesus is the PROPITIATION FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD (1 Jn 2:1,2): My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Calvinistic doctrine is actually a perversion of the truth, and if limited atonement is exposed as a false teaching (as shown above), then the whole edifice crumbles.

I notice you ignore the posts that you can't answer. Answer post #85 and I will answer you on this one. My answer will be with the Scriptures by the way.

 

[twin1954]

Wow! Amazing point!

We will talk about it the next time we speak.

 

[kangaroodort]

I didn't grasp at nothing. I pointed out out what the verse said. Only God can raise the dead.

Nobody suggested that anyone other than God can raise the dead. That is not the question. The question is can the dead hear? You say "no", but Jesus says "yes." You say life must precede "hearing" but Jesus places life as the result of hearing. That is what the plain language dictates. None of that has anything to do with who the agent is that raises the dead, so this comment seems like a total dodge.