- Apr 5, 2003
- 6,713
- 469
- 47
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Romanbear said:Why do you assume that you know what Arminians believe.
Because I was one and because I've spent quite a bit of time discussing these matters. I've spent the last two years alone almost exclusively debating these issues in other forums. I don't know the individual thoughts of each Arminian, but I know what Arminianism and most of its variants teach. I do not make these statements out of blind ignorance.
We believe in choice. That man has the opportunity to either accept Christ or reject Him. The cutoff place is death, or being turned over to a reprobate mind.
As do we. The problem is that you believe in a choice that does not exist...a choice predicated on God's willing that each and every individual person be saved. The choice you promote is not merely accepting or rejecting Christ, but rather the ability to choose whether or not to cooperate with God's sovereign will. Faith is the instrumental cause of our justification. The efficient cause lies with the Creator.
As far as those who never had a chance. I don't know and I don't believe anyone else does either. There are a lot of questions that I have as well that are not answered in the Word.To theorize about them to try to make sense of them is ludicrous because men are only men and are wrong most of the time when they do this. Example; In Christ day the priest the scribes and the Pharisees were all wrong about the coming of the Messiah. To try to answer some of our questions gets very frustrating indeed,but be patient someday you'll have all the answers. It seems to me that most of the Calvinist I've spoken with, all seem to be in a hurry to know all there is to know. There are things yet still in the Bible that haven't been revealed and won't be until God is ready for them to be.
The problem with that argument is that you've reduced your own position as well to a matter of opinion. Either you believe Scripture is completely silent on the matter, or you're attempting to remove Scripture as a means of deriving the truth.
Who on God's earth ever said that doctrine had to be logical to be fact. Did God's word say any where that everything we want to know is in the scriptures? It doesn't say this does it?.
No, everything we may want to know is not contained therein. But everything we NEED to know is.
This seems to be a regular activity that Calvinist participate in. Where you have your own definitions for words that aren't logical to you. You take all and any and add to them to make the word seem logical. Calvinist do the same to John 3:16 when Christ was clearly speaking to Nicodemus. By saying that whosoever is only referring to the elect is absurd. From Nicodemus's response I don't think he understood what Christ was speaking about. Even though there is an apocryphal book known as the book of Nicodemus. No one knows if the man was ever really saved.
My own definitions for words? Much as the KJVOnly crowd would like to deny, translations are NOT divinely inspired and are subject to error and misinterpretation. I submit to you that if you translated the Greek pas the exact same way in every single instance in Scripture, you will have a jumbled mass of contradictions and non-sensicle statements. The simplest example is 1 Timothy 6:10. The same word translated as 'all' in 2 Peter 3:9 is translated 'all kinds of' in 1 Tim 6:10 (unless you're using your 'perfect' 1610 KJ Authorized in which case it is indeed 'all). Since all means all, I would like you to explain to me how money was at the root of Lucifer's rebellion, Adam and Eve's sin, Abel's murder, and all other sins.
The 'whosoever' in John 3:16 refers indirectly to the elect, not directly. The statement is a conditional one: IF you believe, THEN you will be saved. Regardless of your position on election and it's nature, the fact remains that in the end those who ARE saved ARE the elect and the unsaved ARE NOT the elect, whether it was according to foreknowledge or by God's sovereign decree. So the 'whosoever' does refer indirectly to the elect in that the elect are those who meet the condition of believing unto salvation.
Your argument stems from lazy scholarship, plain and simple. You apply scholarship only when it suits your point, then discard it when convenient.
How about .
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
I already know what your response will be but my question will throw you. If we have no choice why does Christ stand at the door and Knock?And why are we given the choice to open the door a clear decision is required. I'll bet you were already to tell me how we are dead and can't hear unless regenerated.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Re Rom 10:13, see John 3:16 above.
Already know my response? Why do you assume you know what Calvinists believe ?!?
For starters, as is often pointed out but apparently falls on deaf ears, the context of this verse does not jibe with your application. Further, as explained above and countless other times, it is still a conditional statement and speaks nothing to man's ability or inability to meet the condition, regardless of context. At least you're consistent in your logic, faulty as it is. Indeed, if we have no choice according to you, why do we need to believe at all? Why do we have to make the choice at all if we're 'forced' into it? Your error is in man's will and desires in his unregenerate state.
You sound like a Greek scholar do you have a PHD in Greek? Or at least a 2000 year old greek dictionary. Why should I want to reinterpret the Bible. The Bible doesn't need our interpretation. and the more you interpret it the father away from the truth you become.
Again, lazy scholarship. I by no means am a Greek scholar, but thanks to the miracles of modern technology I have easy access to the same tools used by men for centuries in Biblical studies. The Bible does absolutely need our interpretation in order to apply it to our lives. That is not to say that truth is subject to interpretation, but that it is revealed to us through PROPER interpretation. If you read everything at 'face value' you would be quite far from where you need to be. History has shown this time and again in heresies derived from loose interpretations of one or two verses and undue focus on them.
As I said in my previous post I have been labeled an Arminian by Calvinist. When this first happened to me I didn't know what he was talking about. When I found out I was a little irritated. I know who Jacobus Arminius was. I know that he studied at Calvin's college and while there turned half of that college of Calvinist into Arminians. A very remarkable man, but I follow no man. I follow Christ. I follow no doctrine as laid out by men but follow the doctrine of Christ.
Labels are just that, labels. Your theology is Arminian in character whether you're an Arminian by profession or not. If you want to label me 'white' or 'caucasian' but I insist I'm just a man, it doesn't change the fact that I'm a white man. I'm not using the term Arminian in a derogatory manner, merely as an expedient means of categorizing your theology. Where it digresses from historic Arminianism I will give due credit and attention. What remains is that a rose by any other name smells the same
There were no Calvinist before Augustine and I've never met a Jew who believed in Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, Limited Atonement,Total depravity of man, and Perseverance of the saints. none of these things are listed in the Bible but are only in the Calvinist logical mind.
I see. I'll remember next time someone bring up the trinity that the term itself does not appear in Scripture and therefore God is only triune in the mind of man and not in actuality. Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity is logically derived from Scripture and therefore evil.
At the end of your post it says Sola Scriptura. This isn't appropriate for Calvinist it should read ("Sola Scriptura and Logical conclusion").
You're neither the first nor the last to make such assertions, and you're every bit as wrong as they. Nevertheless, to accuse me of reasoning out the things of God and constructing logically sound cases for the truths of Scripture is by no means insulting and I think is rather both a testament to the consistency of Reformed Apologetics and the depths to which men, even believers, can be deceived and blinded by their pride.
Upvote
0