Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Often it is condemning them... but Paul is specifically calling out the good that an unsaved person does and why; "When Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law..."Is the law condemning them?
People have the ability to keep themselves from being regenerated by listening to the enemy instead of surrendering to the Spirit. I'm convinced some people are under conviction for much of their lives but never give in.I don't disagree....but I don't think Satan has the ability to keep someone from being regenerated by God.
You are wrong onall three accounts.The whole of scripture is about the regenerate in the same sense. However, that information isn't helpful for the discussion we are having here regarding the Calvinistic doctrine...
Childish.This is the easiest argument in the world to refute. Watch:
Yes. It does. #BOOM #ArgumentRefuted #WonTheArgument.
That is not what a straw man is, Gup. A straw man occurs when a misrepresentation is argued against. It was you who misrepresented the Deuteronomy text. You did so by proof-texting a single verse and ignoring its surrounding passage.This is what is called a strawman argument. You have assumed as true that which you seek to prove and used that assumption as your basis for proof.
What happens if a God-denying unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved person doesn't "fall for satan's distractions"?Because there is a real spiritual war going on, and people fall for Satan's distractions.
Since you don't present any evidence for your claim, it can be easily dismissed as your opinion. How many of the Old Testament Israelites were regenerated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Was scripture not written to them or for them? How often did Paul preach to unbelieving Gentiles (such as Romans, Galatians, or Corinthians)? Do you suppose he didn't talk about scripture? Or did he quote it non-stop to them?You are wrong onall three accounts.
1) Scripture is about Christ, not Christians and very little of its text is specifically about the nono-regenerate. When you acknowledge the Bible is wholly about the regenerate and then try to argue for a soteriology concerning the not-yet regenerate (as Arminianism is), then you are contradicting your own position.
Since your position is not based on evidence, nor the Bible, it stands to reason you made up your mind before reading my post anyway and that no argument would have the potential to persuade you... not even one made by Christ Himself.2) This information is in fact helpful and the fact that you've just gone on record stating otherwise disqualifies you from having anything informed to say on the matter.
3) This op is not about "the Calvinistic doctrine." This op is about and only about Arminianism and its failings. You don't get to come into the op and hijack it for your personal agenda and not have that noted as such.
I will refer you to post #382 where I stated that Arminianism and Calvinism have the same, fatal flaw... both make the same incorrect assumption which renders both theories incorrect and for the same reason.you can stick to the stated topic = "Where Arminianism Fails," then your own content will be "helpful for the discussion." Otherwise, your posts are off-topic.
And I quoted Genesis 3 and Romans 2 to demonstrate this as incorrect. You failed to counter that argument with anything but conjecture and dogmatic opinion.The salient points of conversation relevant to this op are the premises sinfully dead slaves cannot and do not choose to believe unless saved by Arminianism says the not-yet saved can and do believe. In addition, there are no examples of non-believers ever doing so nor scripture ever explicitly reporting any such causality in anyone previously denying God. The precedent is always either one of intellectual assent, covenant relationship, or those already regenerate in Christ but the Arminian will invariably seek to use those groups as a basis for making attributions about the sinfully dead and enslaved who deny God.
Once again, you have assumed the conclusion in spite of the evidence and presented no actual arguments to support your case. The Biblical evidence I presented 1) makes God's plan dependent and motivated by His own Word and promise to Abraham that all of Abraham's descendants would inherit the everlasting covenant... even those from the "many nations" he would be father to. 2) defining life and death as a choice and telling that fallen being to choose does nothing to harm the soverignty of God, but it establishes it to a higher degree. 3) you have yet to quote a single scripture in any of our conversations, so your opinions on exegesis are irrelevant and disingenuous.The soteriology creates a condition in which it is reasonable to ask about the intermediate state wherein God has worked in the individual to save him but that stops short of doing so 1) making Himself and His plan dependent upon the yet-unregenerate sinner, and 2) creating the prospect where God reveals Himself to a person and changes that person to liberty of choice only to have the now-freed sinner decline and walk away in the liberated but denying state, all based on an inference-based eisegetic reading of scripture that repeatedly violates the long- and well-established rules of sound exegesis.
I know that's a lot and the Arm is on the defensive in this op but that is the topic of this op. If you can engage any of that then please do so but please don't change the subject or practice any of the likely errors already mentioned in this discussion. They were broached to help Arminians avoid them. We Cals want you to show up with something better than the same repeated errors of exegesis and logic.
I'm not following your last sentence.it demonstrates that you're not seeking a balanced view, you're only seeking a view that agrees with your position through fringe translations. A balanced view may address these concerns but it shouldn't ignore the vastly dominate way the passage is translated which would be irresponsible. This also is only looking at translations, didn't you want to talk about Greek?
Anyone can post one-liners dissent and vainly imagine it forms a cogent case for something when in fact it is baseless nonsense.If faith is a work, Paul was one messed up dude and we might as well do away with Galatians.
Delusional. The evidence was presented.Since you don't present any evidence for your claim...
That's human logic at work again. We draw conclusions the Bible does not. What do we know of the difference between God CAUSING, and God being the AUTHOR OF? If God says he is not the author of sin, then he is not --in spite of our jumping to conclusions.If humans cannot help but sin because God predetermined that such should be the case, then He's the direct cause, or author, of all sin. Willing/causing sin/evil is different from allowing it, for a time, for His purposes.
No, it doesn't say BY faith, but through faith. And it is an important distinction --however, I do hope you are referring to simple human faith there. Salvific Faith, on the other hand, is indeed how we are saved, and it is, as Reformed Theology is adamant about, the work of GOD IN US, and not of human origin. "By" or "through" is a ticklish difference with that in mind. Parsing doesn't look good to an argument, even when it is right.Paul wrote about justification by faith, not salvation by faith. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that states we are saved by faith.
Which verses did you present to support your claims? Which post number contains a good example of your scriptural exégesis on display?Delusional. The evidence was presented.
It's not a matter of jumping to conclusions. Plausible conclusions can be arrived at viaThat's human logic at work again. We draw conclusions the Bible does not. What do we know of the difference between God CAUSING, and God being the AUTHOR OF? If God says he is not the author of sin, then he is not --in spite of our jumping to conclusions.
Restoration of things. Not people
>> Only believers are Israel in the New Covenant. Good works merit rewards.
>> eternal destruction remains forever
>> This is happening now in the spiritual realm. John spoke in symbols depicting spiritual realities using physical objects.
>> this is in the New Heavens and Earth.
>>Only the saved are healed.
>> all = the saved only, the rest are in eternal torments.
> based on seeing what you want to see while ignoring the rest of scripture.
I'm saddened that you didn't pick up on the fact that I was "mirroring" the quality of your argument with an equal but opposite argument. Irony is lost on some, I guess.Childish.
No scripture means no evidence.The difference between us, Gup, is that I refute the post with evidence both scriptural and logical and you ignore that content. The difference between us is that I don't proof-text scripture but instead consider whole scripture in its many contexts both local and global and you do the opposite.
So you don't believe in the 6th point of Calvinism -- irresistible sarcasm?So when snide comments like the above are posted following what has already transpired, the snide comments say more about you then anyone or anything else.
Proof texted? This is the first I've heard of this opinion from you. Care to discuss?In this particular case the two single verses quoted were shown 1) to have been proof-texted, and 2) to say something much different when considered in their stated contexts.
I was just going by Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10 that Duteronomy 30 was regarding the "righteous based on faith" and that Deu 30 discusses the "word of faith which Paul was preaching". I'll stick to that rather than your interpretation.That is not what a straw man is, Gup. A straw man occurs when a misrepresentation is argued against. It was you who misrepresented the Deuteronomy text. You did so by proof-texting a single verse and ignoring its surrounding passage.
Deuteronomy 30 occurs in the context of a covenant established before any of the people in the Deuteronomy 30 audience were even born! The covenant with Abraham of which God is speaking was initiated by God hundreds of years before anyone in Dt. 30 was born. The Sinai covenant through Moses was also initiated by God and also initiated without asking anyone if they wanted God to do so.
1) God initiated the covenant.
2) God initiated the covenant without asking consent.
3) It was only after they were within the covenant were they asked.
Until you come to terms with the soteriological relevance of those three truths you won't be forming an intelligent response. Until those three truths are addressed the previous poroof-texting of Dt, 30:19 fails.
You don't get to jump around from verse to verse to verse to verse and expect to be taken seriously.
You brought up Dt. 3019.
I dealt with it demonstrating the proof-texting failed.
You did not address the matter; you instead attempted to change verses to be discussed.
So you believe that after the fall, Adam was not totally depraved and he was not in need of salvation for eternal life? Interesting position. He was indwelled by Holy Spirit while dead then? Or are you asserting that he contained a sin nature before the fall and before he sinned?And Adam was not in an uncovenanted state! You've - once again - displayed an amazing lackof knowledge about scripture.
So either stick to the topic of the op - which is about Arminiainsim
As stated above, I'm going by Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 30 as being about the righteousness based on faith.deal with the error you made regarding Dt. 30:19.
It's 25% about Arminianism and 75% about where it asserts Calvinsim gets it right.No one will have any trust you can have a cogent conversation if you prove unwilling or unable to discuss your own content incrementally. No one will have any trust you can have a cogent conversation if you don't won't can't stay on topic.
It's reall simple: just keep the words, "Calvin," "Calvinism," and "Calvinists" out of your posts and stick to "Arminius," "Arminianism," and "Arminianists."
This op is about the where Arminianism fails. Nothing more.
Actually, I argued against Arminianism as having the same fatal flaw as Calvinism.You said Dt. 30:19 evidences Arminian soteriolgy but an exegetical examination of the proof-texted verse proves the exact opposite and you are not dealing with that fact.
Anyone can post one-liners dissent and vainly imagine it forms a cogent case for something when in fact it is baseless nonsense.
Prove faith isn't a work.
Prove Paul believed otherwise.
Provide a single example from Galatians that talks about the faith of the unregenerate.
Provide a single example in Galatians where faith is mentioned absent any corresponding behavioral manifestation of that faith.
Strawman.Otherwise, the righteous shall live by faith (Gal. 2:20) and the unrighteous will not live at all. Everyone was shut up under sin and kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed (Gal. 3:22-26). In other words, faith is revealed, not inherent in the dead sinner.
If Armininianists say this, they are wrong (though they probably don't say this). The correct argument is that no mystical, magical, or spiritual power is required for faith and faith is mere belief in the gospel.We were all previously shut up to the faith and shut up under sin, but Arminianism says God works in the shut up person just enough to allow that person to have faith before being freed from the sin that shuts him up from that faith. The promise by faith in Jesus Christ given to those who believe (Gal. 3:22) but there's no record of any unregenerate believing in the God he denies exists.
Paul wrote about justification by faith, not salvation by faith. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that states we are saved by faith.
James 2:17-18
"Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'"
So when the Arminian asserts God is waiting for the unregenerate sinner to believe, that Arminiain is saying God is waiting for that dead and enslaved unregenerate sinner to demonstrate or operationalize his faith from the sinfully dead and enslaved and still not yet regenerate state.
The faith discussed in Galatians is all about the regenerate, not the unregenerate.
First, God loves everyone. Do you believe that? If you do, then how could you believe it's His will for anyone to remain enslaved by Satan?What happens if a God-denying unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved person doesn't "fall for satan's distractions"?
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?Prove faith isn't a work
The quote refers, by "evil", to catastrophe or things we commonly refer to as bad luck.It's not a matter of jumping to conclusions. Plausible conclusions can be arrived at via
scripture on both sides of this coin. But the church has never taught double presentation or the total absence whatsoever of man's will playing some role in his being justified. The gospel and "salvation history" is reduced to nonsense if that were so. If man is created in such a way that he can do nothing but sin, then the concept of sin is nonsense to begin with, because sin implies a knowledge of the moral evil of an act and a willingness to commit it anyway, with the capability of refraining. If he cannot do otherwise but sin, then he's not responsible for sin. But his creator would be; God would be the author of sin/evil. And some Reformed, in fact, like to point to Is 45:7 to prove this fact:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Sure it does, perfectly also.God's command, btw, does not imply the ability to obey it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?