The powerless Arminian Jesus

[Arial]

Different Bible scholars and teachers disagree about this based on translations and their beliefs. It gets even more interesting when Paul mentions in Ephesians 2 how he used to be a "child of wrath" before God showed him mercy and love, making him alive in Christ. Some see this, along with other verses, as proof that God's patience is about giving more chances to those who haven't turned to Him yet.
So, you see, there's a lot to unpack in these verses that makes people think deeply and wrestle with different interpretations.

It is beside the point that there is disagreement on translations and their beliefs with different Bible scholars and teachers. We are looking at it. You and I.

Eph 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobeidence---among whom we all once live in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

This says it is how we all are until verses 4-9 takes place, and he is writing to those who have been re-born in Christ. We are born as children of wrath. Regardless of what some see this as, and I assume you are one, it is not even discussing the patience of God. Those who believe that salvation is by general grace given for understanding, and the work of Christ being applied to them depends on whether they accept this gift or not, believe what you state. (And therefore for most He died in vain.) But you have yet to demonstrate from scripture that that premise is true. I have done some unpacking in my previous post. Your turn.

This is a better translation of verse 22 22 What if God, although fully intending to show [the awfulness of] His wrath and to make known His power and authority, has tolerated with much patience the vessels (objects) of [His] anger which are ripe for destruction?

It is not a better translation. It is the one you prefer because it becomes easier to avoid the cold hard facts, for some reason, I am supposing this is from the Amplified Bible.

logos.com/grow/use-not-use-amplified-bible/

How is it saying anything different than:
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. NASB

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction. NASB

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction NKJV

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

In every translation above including the Amp the vessels of wrath are prepared for destruction by God. He is not waiting for them to become vessels of destruction any more than He is waiting for vessels of mercy to become vessels of mercy. What He is withholding His wrath for is for all those He calls to be born and called. He knows them already because they were born for the purpose of belonging to Christ. (John 17; Eph 1:4)

 

[Mercy_Shown]

It is beside the point that there is disagreement on translations and their beliefs with different Bible scholars and teachers. We are looking at it. You and I.

Eph 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobeidence---among whom we all once live in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

This says it is how we all are until verses 4-9 takes place, and he is writing to those who have been re-born in Christ. We are born as children of wrath. Regardless of what some see this as, and I assume you are one, it is not even discussing the patience of God. Those who believe that salvation is by general grace given for understanding, and the work of Christ being applied to them depends on whether they accept this gift or not, believe what you state. (And therefore for most He died in vain.) But you have yet to demonstrate from scripture that that premise is true. I have done some unpacking in my previous post. Your turn.

No, I believe in the same grace as you do. The only difference is I receive it by choosing to submit to God. Whereas it seems that you believe it is imposed on one without their consent.

I believe every person is responsible because God gives them the ability to grasp the opportunity to submit to Him and His grace where as you seem to believe that certain people have no chance. That God created some of them to live in this sinful world in bondage to sin with no hope or chance afforded them and then be punished for it.

 

[Arial]

No, I believe in the same grace as you do. The only difference is I receive it by choosing to submit to God. Whereas it seems that you believe it is imposed on one without their consent.

Oh it has my full consent and I do choose to submit to God. What I didn't choose was to believe. I did believe. And what I believed was that every word in the Bible was true, therefore whatever it might say about Jesus was true. And what I knew was that it was that absolute truth I had been searching for all my life. I did not decide to believe what I believed, or choose to believe it, and I did not think I knew it was the truth, I knew. Now maybe someone who never was on a quest to find that truth, someone one to whom truth was somewhat relative, even the truth in the Bible, might not have any idea what I mean when I say the above. What it meant, not in my mind but at my very core, and with not a shadow of doubt, that I knew. I woke up from a nights sleep in that condition.

And even if it was that this was imposed on me---and it wasn't, it was done for me and in me---I would be eternally grateful for the imposition. As would anyone and everyone who had such a thing imposed on them. Think about it. And then rethink your position that we can be shown this glorious truth in a way that understands and believes it, and then say "No thanks. I would rather go to hell."

I believe every person is responsible because God gives them the ability to grasp the opportunity to submit to Him and His grace where as you seem to believe that certain people have no chance. That God created some of them to live in this sinful world in bondage to sin with no hope or chance afforded them and then be punished for it.

Everyone is responsible to God regardless of what they do or don't believe. So, with Paul I say, "Who are you O man, to argue with God."

If Jesus Himself stood in front of you and told you that what the Reformed in this thread is true, would you turn away from God? Don't try to weasel out of answering that by things like "He wouldn't, because it isn't." Just answer the question. Think about it long enough to be honest with yourself. It is possible that it is true you know, as everything that has been presented in support of it, has had to be reworked in order to fit your view. Mostly with comparisons to man, inadequate analogies, what if's, I cannot's, I think's, and a lot of coulda, woulda, shoulda. And after that has been done, contradictions exist within the scriptures being discussed and all over Bible that are ignored. Mostly, they define God from a human perspective and pay no attention to how God defines Himself.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

If Jesus Himself stood in front of you and told you that what the Reformed in this thread is true,

He wouldn’t, it is not in his character.

 

[Carbon]

I do believe there are some very deep reasons as to why he did but I don’t believe that it had much to do with the teachings of Calvinism.

Synergists, seriously consider this.

Understanding the gospel biblically.

"You talked about recovering the gospel," said our questioner; don't you just mean that you just want us all to become Calvinists?"

This question presumably concerns not the word but the thing. Whether we call ourselves Calvinists hardly matters; what matters is that we should understand the gospel biblically. But that, we think, does in fact mean understanding it as historic Calvinism does. The alternative is to misunderstand and distort it. We said earlier that modern evangelicalism, by and large, has ceased to preach the gospel in the old way, and we frankly admit that the new gospel, insofar as it deviates from the old, seems to us a distortion of the biblical message. And we can now see what has gone wrong. Our theological currency has been debased. Our minds have been conditioned to think of the cross as a redemption that does less than redeem, and of Christ as a Savior who does less than save, and God's love as a weak affection that cannot keep anyone from hell without help, and of faith as the human help that God needs for His purpose.

As a result, we are no longer free either to believe the biblical gospel or to preach it. We cannot believe it, because our thoughts are caught in the toils of synergism. We are haunted by the Arminian idea that if faith and unbelief are to be responsible acts, they must be independent acts; hence we are not free to believe that we are saved entirely by divine grace through a faith that is itself God's gift and flows to us from Calvary.
Instead, we involve ourselves in a bewildering kind of double-think about salvation, telling ourselves one moment that it all depends on God and the next moment that it all depends on us. The resultant mental muddle deprives God of much of the glory that we should give Him as author and finisher of salvation, and ourselves of much of the comfort we might draw from knowing that God is for us.




Continued..............

 

[Carbon]

Understanding the gospel biblically.

"You talked about recovering the gospel," said our questioner; don't you just mean that you just want us all to become Calvinists?"

This question presumably concerns not the word but the thing. Whether we call ourselves Calvinists hardly matters; what matters is that we should understand the gospel biblically. But that, we think, does in fact mean understanding it as historic Calvinism does. The alternative is to misunderstand and distort it. We said earlier that modern evangelicalism, by and large, has ceased to preach the gospel in the old way, and we frankly admit that the new gospel, insofar as it deviates from the old, seems to us a distortion of the biblical message. And we can now see what has gone wrong. Our theological currency has been debased. Our minds have been conditioned to think of the cross as a redemption that does less than redeem, and of Christ as a Savior who does less than save, and God's love as a weak affection that cannot keep anyone from hell without help, and of faith as the human help that God needs for His purpose.

As a result, we are no longer free either to believe the biblical gospel or to preach it. We cannot believe it, because our thoughts are caught in the toils of synergism. We are haunted by the Arminian idea that if faith and unbelief are to be responsible acts, they must be independent acts; hence we are not free to believe that we are saved entirely by divine grace through a faith that is itself God's gift and flows to us from Calvary.
Instead, we involve ourselves in a bewildering kind of double-think about salvation, telling ourselves one moment that it all depends on God and the next moment that it all depends on us. The resultant mental muddle deprives God of much of the glory that we should give Him as author and finisher of salvation, and ourselves of much of the comfort we might draw from knowing that God is for us.




Continued..............

Continued:

And when we come to preach the gospel, our false preconceptions make us just say the opposite of what we intend. We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior, yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors.
We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ. So we declare that God's redeeming love extends to everyone and that Christ has died to save every man, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor that actually saves us is our own believing.

What we say comes to this - that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this - that we save ourselves with Christ's help.

J. I. Packer.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Continued:

And when we come to preach the gospel, our false preconceptions make us just say the opposite of what we intend. We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior, yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors.
We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ. So we declare that God's redeeming love extends to everyone and that Christ has died to save every man, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor that actually saves us is our own believing.

What we say comes to this - that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this - that we save ourselves with Christ's help.

J. I. Packer.

This is entirely foreign to what the Bible teaches . Perhaps the author read some peoples minds and knew what they think or perhaps he created his own strawman to analyse but either way what he outlines is not what the Bible says. But neither is the idea that Christ ignored the larger swath of people to die in their sins or even worse is created them as fodder for hell.

 

[Carbon]

This is entirely foreign to what the Bible teaches . Perhaps the author read some peoples minds and knew what they think or perhaps he created his own strawman to analyse but either way what he outlines is not what the Bible says. But neither is the idea that Christ ignored the larger swath of people to die in their sins or even worse is created them as fodder for hell.

Well, you have it your way

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Because they [chose] to submit to the convictions of the Holy Spirit.

My answer quoted and cited scriptures. Yours did not.

I am content with this, confident in the judgment of the readers.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

My answer quoted and cited scriptures. Yours did not.

I am content with this, confident in the judgment of the readers.

Don't fool yourself. Neither of us is going to change anyone's mind. People don't come here to have their minds changed, they come to share their opinions. I have never been under the illusion that you or anyone else here will leave converted from any of their -sims.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Well, you have it your way

We all have it our way. If we didn't believe our way was correct we'd be fools to stick to it. Humans rarely give up their opinions easily and when they do it is usually over a long period of time. Take this instance, you are not interested in what I believe, you are satisfied with responding to what you imagine I believe as are most human beings. I understand that so I take no offense.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Don't fool yourself. Neither [one] of us is going to change anyone's mind. People don't come here to have their minds changed, they come to share their opinions. I have never been under the illusion that you or anyone else here will leave converted from any of their -isms.

As someone once said, "You are assuming facts about me. Not good." (That person was you, in fact, earlier in the day.) I spent the first half of my life as an atheist; I am now a Christian. I used to be Liberal; I now vote Conservative. I was formerly an Arminian; I am now a Calvinist. At one point I subscribed to dispensationalism; now I affirm covenant theology. I was once a young-earth creationist; I am now an old-earth creationist. I used to be an egalitarian; I am now a complementarian. And so on it goes.

So, maybe you refuse to change your mind, that's fine, but don't go projecting that onto me. I am always willing to change my mind, provided someone can make a better case for their view than I can for mine, especially if they prove me wrong. It has happened multiple times.

It didn't happen this time, though. Because in the middle of the discussion you just stopped. Yeah, you're not changing minds using that method.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

As someone once said, "You are assuming facts about me. Not good." (That person was you, in fact, earlier in the day.) I spent the first half of my life as an atheist; I am now a Christian. I used to be Liberal; I now vote Conservative. I was formerly an Arminian; I am now a Calvinist. At one point I subscribed to dispensationalism; now I affirm covenant theology. I was once a young-earth creationist; I am now an old-earth creationist. I used to be an egalitarian; I am now a complementarian. And so on it goes.

So, maybe you refuse to change your mind, that's fine, but don't go projecting that onto me. I am always willing to change my mind, provided someone can make a better case for their view than I can for mine, especially if they prove me wrong. It has happened multiple times.

It didn't happen this time, though. Because in the middle of the discussion you just stopped. Yeah, you're not changing minds using that method.

Don’t fool yourself. It wasn’t because you came here. Again you have responded to what you think I said and not what I said. Reformed theology teaches that change comes through irresistible Grace and not forum debates.

When one is that the hero and the judge and the establish are of the criteria in which they would change their mind there’s very little chance that their opinions will be changed.

I see that you took this personally but it is a general statement about all human beings including myself.

I am sure if you think about it you will agree that changing from an atheist to Christian and all the changes that have happened to you are not due to your open mindedness or your ability to judge truth but by God’s grace instead.

 

[Arial]

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 would say, absolutely.

Except that John is writing the words of Jesus to the church of the Laodiceans. They were already believers. And since we have all those scriptures, most of which we have already gone over, and dozens upon dozens of others that clearly say that believers are foreknown, predestined, called, glorified, sanctified; all those that refer to the epistle recipients as the elect or the called; all the places in the gospels where Jesus says those the Father is giving Him are the ones who are called, and chosen, and who believe; the places where Jesus says the reason some don't believe is because they are not His, that those who are His, the ones the Father is giving Him, hear His voice and follow Him, and that He knows them (as opposed to "I never knew you."):

And since we have the knowledge of God that He does as He pleases; (Psalm 115:3) and since we have the knowledge of God that He is sovereign over all His creation and always accomplishes what He determines to do; Prov 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand. Is 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.';

And since we have Jesus substituting Himself in the place of believers making propitiation and purchasing them with His blood;

And in the complete absence of any discussion in the Bible on it being God's plan to give every individual equal opportunity to make a choice whether to accept or reject Christ; absent any doctrinal discussion within its pages of God placing a higher value on man's freedom than on His own; absent any clear teaching or evidence that God was ever concerned about man's will remaining free or being restored to freedom, (it never will be free, but always is subject to God and always has been); absent any teaching that the goal of redemption was to restore free will; in view of all that, and I cut it short for the sake of post length, what does Rev 3:20-21 mean?

The standing at the door and knocking is likely a reference to Song of Solomon 5:2, the bridegroom speaking to the bride. It is the voice of the of my beloved! He knocks saying "Open to me!' The church is the bride and Christ is the bridegroom, and it is to the church that He is speaking. So it is not an invitation to the readers to be converted, but to renew the relationship with Christ that had already begun. Verse 19 As many as I love I rebuke---be zealous and repent.

We see this picture of relationship in the Song itself. In the Song the bridegroom knocks on the door to encourage his wife to continue to express her love for him. We see how far that church had strayed from this relationship in the things Jesus chastises them for.

I realize that you do not believe the scripture references I give mean what I present them as meaning. And that you do believe what I have stated as being absent from Scripture. Therefore, most likely, you will try to find a way to undo or at least reject, what was said. But consider this. Is that possibly because you start with your own premise and are unable to break away from it and so are unable to be neutral and simply accept what the Bible says. Even to the point of saying, even believing, that you always read and study from a neutral position and simply go by what it says.

 

[Arial]

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?

Yes, he does. But does He?

Paul had just given an example of God doing that. And we do not form ourselves.

Context can often be colored by bias and anyone can sidestep the word by calling it a proof text.

Not the actual context. And a proof text is one that when it is given all by itself appears to say one thing, but when it is considered within its immediate context, the who, what, where, when, and why of what the one text is taken from, and the whole counsel of God on the same subject, is not found to be saying what it first appeared to say at all, but something entirely different. So I challenge you to point out when that has ever happened in my posts. I have shown you places where you do that. You dismiss it, but that does not mean it was not done.

 

[Arial]

The whosoever believeth in me... Yes. Whosoever, not the pre-determined few.

That passage is not even discussing the teaching that you are using it to prove.

Sometimes it is the best way. What we mustn't do is think we have it right and everyone else is wrong.

It tends to create doctrine out of speculation. And what we mustn't do is think it is not possible to get it right. Or consider that someone thinks everyone but them is wrong if they do have it right and can demonstrate that with correct hermeneutics, exegesis , and exposition.

Passively or actively?

Either way, He still did it. And I can't answer that with an absolute because one isn't given.

Giving implies choice. One gives and one receives or does not but to those who did receive him he gave...

Giving does not imply choice. Sometimes in the natural world a gift can be accepted or rejected, but in this case we are not talking about the natural world. Consider what is being given. "By grace you have been saved through faith, and that is not of yourselves but it is a gift of God. How can faith be given and at the same time be rejected.?To say so completely loses sight of what that faith contains. How can we actually have faith and at the same time not have it?

No God did not pass out the hearts of men. Man influences the formation of the hearts of their kids. I had some students who came to our school who were adopted as toddlers from Eastern Europe and who had grown up in an orphanage where they were never held or cuddled as babies. The first real consistent contact they had was with their American adoptive parents. By the 5th grade, all kinds of problems had cropped up. They showed positive emotions when interacting with others. They Avoid eye contact and physical touch. They express fear or anger by throwing tantrums or frequently showing unhappiness or sadness. They were controlling with anything or anyone who would be controlled.

I know you don't think that is a deflection, but it is. We are not discussing man, but God. God says "I will give them a new heart." He says, "I will remove their heart of stone." He asks, "Who made the ear of man?" He says, "I open or close the eye, and I open or close the ear."

 

[Mercy_Shown]

That passage is not even discussing the teaching that you are using it to prove.

There is no proof in religion. We live by faith not proof. Having said that this language does indeed suggest choice. His chosen people were often at the crossroads of choice and often chose the wrong path. Many people who live today make the wrong choice. Ez 33:11 11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? Is He the same today as He was yesterday or has He changed?

It tends to create doctrine out of speculation. And what we mustn't do is think it is not possible to get it right. Or consider that someone thinks everyone but them is wrong if they do have it right and can demonstrate that with correct hermeneutics, exegesis , and exposition.

Perfect description of Calvinism. "correct hermeneutics, exegesis , and exposition." meaning "as I see it."

Either way, He still did it. And I can't answer that with an absolute because one isn't given.

Giving does not imply choice. Sometimes in the natural world a gift can be accepted or rejected, but in this case we are not talking about the natural world. Consider what is being given. "By grace you have been saved through faith, and that is not of yourselves but it is a gift of God. How can faith be given and at the same time be rejected.?To say so completely loses sight of what that faith contains. How can we actually have faith and at the same time not have it?

If it is not rejectable it is not a gift, it is an obligation.

I know you don't think that is a deflection, but it is. We are not discussing man, but God. God says "I will give them a new heart." He says, "I will remove their heart of stone." He asks, "Who made the ear of man?" He says, "I open or close the eye, and I open or close the ear."

Now who is deflecting? Look, it is counterproductive for either one of us to set ourselves up as the judge and jury of a debate. Of course, you will justify your position as near perfect and deem those with whom you disagree as deflecting etc. And lets face it, this particular forum here is an echo chamber for calvanists. So it can be hard to overcome ones bias. If I start constantly accusing you of deflecting everytime you accuse me we are going to be in an ad homenehim food fight.

You may believe that God leaves a class of people to die in their sins without lifting a finger to help them but I don't. I don't see that in His character at all. I agree with what the bible says when it states that he wishes all men would be saved. Since that is his wish if he was a God who manipulated people into loving him, then all would be manipulated into his heaven and never know it was manipulation.

Calvanists share the Pharasees belief that they are a special people chosen of God and not rejected like the poor vessels made for destruction. Since God wishes that all men everywhere would come to repentance but they don't means that God has given everyone a fair shake and people end up where the choose to be.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Paul had just given an example of God doing that. And we do not form ourselves.

God raised Pharaoh to power, He raised Nebuchadnezzar to power. Either way these men chose to exercise that power would glorify God. God of course knew their hearts and their choices. What the bible does not say is that He made them do what they did and choose what they did.

Not the actual context. And a proof text is one that when it is given all by itself appears to say one thing, but when it is considered within its immediate context, the who, what, where, when, and why of what the one text is taken from, and the whole counsel of God on the same subject, is not found to be saying what it first appeared to say at all, but something entirely different. So I challenge you to point out when that has ever happened in my posts. I have shown you places where you do that. You dismiss it, but that does not mean it was not done.

You cry out proof text as a means of deflecting. Why not just address the texts or ignore them if you like? But let's not use logical fallacies in our arguments.

 

[makesends]

This does not imply that God has full authority over His creation to do as He pleases. God says that He does. ANd Paul says that for any to say this in injustice on God's part. In verse 19 he says You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20. But who are you, O man, to answer back to God" WIll what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21. Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Exactly. He is not arrogantly or pompously shouting down impudent naysayers by saying, "Who are you, O man?", but rather, making his argument, of the positional difference between God and his creatures.

 

[Arial]

You cry out proof text as a means of deflecting. Why not just address the texts or ignore them if you like? But let's not use logical fallacies in our arguments.

If you ask that we not use logical fallacies in our arguments, why are you using nothing but logical fallacies here? You say I use proof text as a means of deflecting when in fact I have never done so, and even if I had, you have no way of knowing what was in my mind and so no way of knowing my reason. You imply that I don't address the texts when anyone reading this or any other thread knows that I do address the texts. So straw man and probably other fallacies, but I need more coffee.