Dear all,
my reply to ben's post and questions for all arminianists
Ben said.
quote:
[as posted by Ben on this forum] says that God looked into the future [via His foreknowledge] and in seeing who would choose Jesus, predestined these to be the elect.
Ben didn't say that. Ben said, that "those whom He FOREKNEW, He predestined to be CHRISTLIKE".
Ben do you have a short memory? Yes Ben you said that the above as well. Here is your former post [# 67 on page 7 of this thread.] First you posted this Arminian doctrine:
The main tenets of Arminianism are:
1.God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
Then you posted your position:
The first tennet of Arminianism I accept. Indeed, this is word-for-word from Romans1
Since you accept this tenet of Arminianism, and you posted it on the web, then yes you said it. But whether you agree with it or not, it is the first tenet of Arminianism. And therefore let it be said that Arminianism teaches that there is a predestined elect. Therefore my argument still stands.
then Ben,
The verse in Phlp1:6 says "He will bring to completion the good work He began in you"---but, contextually, it is entirely predicated upon the believer's BELIEF. (Paul then prays for the believers to ENDURE IN THEIR SALVATION, in verses 1:9-14; unless someone can contend that "in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ" is not talking about salvation {see Col1:22-23})... [/I[
This is a moot point. The argument from the Arminianist side isnt whether God will perform a good work in you if you have faith or not, but whether faith can be lost. So this verse is useless for the Arminian argument. If faith cannot be lost, their argument is voided. Simply asserting it can be lost doesnt prove anything, since it is an ungrounded assertion. The verse certainly doesnt address that issue [looking from their point of view that is].
But what is this good work God has begun in us? If it is the work of faith, then their whole position is lost. Certainly this verse alone doesnt dispute that assertion, so they must appeal elsewhere to dispute it, even as a Calvinist must appeal beyond this verse to show that is what they think it is saying [if they even think that!]
Is there any reason in context to think that this good work God has started in us could be faith? First, Ben simply, and I mean simply assumes this working of God is contingent on our continuance in the faith. There is nothing in the verse, or the context that gives credence to that assumption. Let us look at the parallel between this verse and the previous one.
Verse 5 your fellowship from the first day until now
Verse 6 good work begun in you until day of Jesus Christ
Second, let us look at who is having faith, Paul, for he says
[Paul] being confident of this very thing.
Paul has confidence that God will complete what He has started. There is no mention of the faith of who he has started that good work in.
Third, If faith is a work of God, then it very well could be that good work God has begun in us. John 6:29 tells us:
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent.
Otherwise, what good work is Ben or anyone else proposing Paul is talking about?
Ben.
quote:
Again, you rip the verse out on context and assign your own meaning to it.. Paul is not making a statement of what God wills for every single human that ever lived. Many have gone and died and went to hell already. Does God now will them to be saved? If God willed that Judas be saved why did He write the Scripture that Judas [as the son of perdition] must be lost? See John 17:13. And while you are in John 17, read the prayer in context. Read how Jesus is NOT praying for the world in general [and specifically says that], but rather is only praying for believers. John 17:6-21.
God wills, and God desires. Two different approaches. What God wills, must occur. What God desires, may occur. God does not WILL that ANY man be saved. He DESIRES that ALL MEN be saved. If God WILLS only the ELECT (His choice) be saved, then how do you separate the first "Pas Anthropos" of Rm5:18 (condemnation to all men), from the second "Pas Anthropos" (justification to all men)? Where is the predestined-election in verses such as Rm10:13, Jn1:7, Rm3:22?
Me.
Ben asks about 4 verses.
First, Romans 5:18
I have already answered this, but Ben has ducked my answer. But I will answer it again, Romans 10:9-10 tells us that it is only those who believe in the heart that are justified. Paul has already established this point prior to Romans 5:18. See Romans 3:21-28, which plainly teaches that men are justified by faith. Therefore in Romans 5:18, Paul sees no reason to re-establish that point again. Are all men justified by the cross of Christ, or only those with faith?
The Scriptures plainly teach that only hose with faith are so justified. Therefore in Romans 5:18 when Paul says that the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men, he means ALL men WITH FAITH. This is easily seen by the next verse where Paul substitutes the phrase the many for the all of the previous verse. Finally, if you look at a little larger context, the picture gets clearer. It speaks about those -who reign in righteousness with Christ- both before and after the verse in question. It clearly only means to say that those who have received Gods abundant grace will so reign. And as previously noted, only by faith is anyone justified.
It is obvious that the word all can mean different things in the same sentence, as can the word world. When people allow the Word to dictate their doctrine they can easily see what this verse means. But when you let your false doctrine dictate how you read the Word, you stumble and are blind, failing even to see simple contradictions in your argument. Surely Ben believes that only those with faith are justified by the cross. Why then does he argue for some other doctrine? He does so to bolster a case that is not grounded in the truth. Arminianist doctrine [as shown by how they too believe in a predestined elect] is self-contradictory and careful assessment of it will show us that.
Scripture 2 Where is the predestined elect in Romans 10:13, he asks?
Where is it not? Let us review the Arminianist doctrine of predestined elect. God in His foreknowledge sees who will choose Him and predestines these as the elect. Or, God in His foreknowledge sees who will call upon the name of the Lord [same as choosing Him] and predestines these as the elect. Now that is the Arminianist take on it. Since God foreknows who will call on Him and designates these as the elect, we can safely say that only the elect will call on Him. The whosoever here and in John 3:16 is not an open ended thing with God, for he has foreknowledge. Granted, we cannot see who these elect are until they do call upon the Lord, but that is no different than Calvinism. Whats his beef? Maybe he doesnt understand his own doctrine!
Scripture 3 Where is the predestined elect in John 1:7?
From Gods point of view [with His foreknowledge] could He still think that He sent Jesus so that ALL [as in every person who ever lived] might believe? Absolutely not!! In fact, even if He had no foreknowledge, that would be an absurd thought. There is no way that ALL in this verse can possibly mean every person who ever lived. For easy starters, many people were already dead and gone. Second, many people would never even hear of the Lord Jesus, and as we know without hearing, there can be no believing. Third, we know that only those to whom the truth is revealed can understand the Gospel as spiritual truth. Fourth, we know that God does have foreknowledge and already knew there would be some that would believe and many who would not. So therefore thinking that this ALL must mean everyone who ever lived is again driven not by good biblical thinking, but rather by a desire to force a doctrine on the Word that is alien to it and to common sense as well.
What could this ALL mean? We need to remember the times and the recipients to whom the gospels were originally written. These were real live people, with real live needs and concerns. God didnt just override their present position to write His Word, but used their words formed by their godly concerns to write a living word applicable to all. Many of that day felt that only Jews could be saved. In fact, all through their history, Jews were told that they alone were Gods people, and that the rest were pagans. Only by going through a prescribed ritual and after many years of it, could a Gentile be partially admitted to their club. It is no surprise then that Jews thought Jesus, also a Jew, was sent only for them. Another problem early Christians faced was a heresy called gnosticism. Here there were some people who claimed they had a secret club based on unrevealed knowledge [secrets]. They sought to exclude all others from their cult and claimed Jesus solely as their own. ALL could have been written to combat one or both of these false teachings.
ALL cannot mean everyone who ever lived, so it must mean less than that. God knows who will believe and these are the predestined elect. No one else can believe but them.
The fourth Scripture, Romans 3:22. Where is the predestined elect in that verse?
This is another poor example of bad scripture reading. ALL there is already qualified by those who believe. We know that all those who believe are the predestined elect. If someone who wasnt of the predestined elect believed, then Gods foreknowledge would be wrong and with error. I serve a great God, perfect in every way and not one who makes mistakes! How about you?
quote:
So what does 1st Timothy 2:4 mean? It means that Paul is saying that the gospel is not limited to a few people here or there, or just the Jewish people, but to people everywhere, people of every race and tongue and nation,. See Rev. 5:6-10.
Indeed. The Gospel is available to all---all who will believe...
And who will believe BUT ONLY those who are of the predestined elect, so says Arminianism!
Love,
mike
Tell you what, before I answer this, please share your definition of "free-will." That way I won't be explaining the wrong thing.
:You give your interpretation, I'll give mine. If you disagree with mine you relay that you disagree with my opinion, and to be productive, why you disagree, not just that my opinion is false. Opinions can't be false, just different than the opinion of others.
