The powerless Arminian Jesus

[Mercy_Shown]

What does 1 Cor 2:14 mean?

It means that without the sprit of God one cannot choose because they cannot know spiritual things. But as we see those that partake of the Holy Spirit and taste the goodness of God and are enlightened can choose and sometimes it is not a good choice and they crucify Christ afresh.

 

[Arial]

Then you agree that a non-born-again person can be enlightened and partake of the Holy Spirit. Well, then, that is what I have been saying all along. Now, this non-born-again person was not enlightened by his efforts, and he was not enlightened by other mortals, so it must be God who enlightened him and gave him a taste of the power of the world to come. This non-born-again person partook of the Holy Spirit, not by his power, so why would God do that? Could it be so this non-born-again person could choose whereas before he could not? Or perhaps he was born-again but then decided to turn back to death, to the fleshpots of Egypt.

I am not agreeing with you are and you are not even agreeing for yourself, since you sometimes use this Heb 6 scripture to prove that a person can lose their salvation and now use it to prove your free will choice theory. In which case those in the "if" were being offered a choice of salvation and rejecting it. Therefore your other use of it as proving we can lose our salvation would go down the drain, as they never were saved. They were only offered salvation.

What we actually have in those verses is people choosing something--- participation with the people of God and the things of God, for whatever reason.They chose identification with them, their ceremonies perhaps, their joy and friendliness. Social reasons----whatever it might be. They identified themselves with believers but they did not believe beyond a superficial level. It was not a belief within their heart that could not be shaken because they truly believed it and could never walk away from it. But they did, as soon as the going got tough or something else captured their attention more. Because they were only choosing, not believing.

The gospel is not hidden. It is not a secret. Walk into any church, turn on the tv, encounter people preaching the gospel anywhere, a person is exposed to it. Bibles are on bookshelves, often collecting dust. They are in motel rooms and libraries and bookstores. It is not a choice, it is truth. The word of God is not crying out "Choose me, choose me!" It cries out, "Believe me and live!"

So the question is not why do some choose Christ and some do not? It is why do some believe and some do not. And the scriptures tell us. "Those He foreknew, He predestined, and called, and justified, and glorified." Those who He was giving to Christ He granted to be drawn to Christ. Those who are His sheep hear His voice. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." You simply don't like that, can't imagine a God who would do such a thing. And so find a way to imagine Him differently than what He says and tell yourself the scriptures agree with you. But we are not supposed to imagine who God is, and create an image of Him that we are comfortable with. We are to know Him according to His self revelation, and believe Him.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I am not agreeing with you are and you are not even agreeing for yourself, since you sometimes use this Heb 6 scripture to prove that a person can lose their salvation and now use it to prove your free will choice theory. In which case those in the "if" were being offered a choice of salvation and rejecting it. Therefore your other use of it as proving we can lose our salvation would go down the drain, as they never were saved. They were only offered salvation.

When one chooses to reject Christ, they lose salvation. There is no contradiction here. One must work to be lost and one can’t work to be saved. Damnation is a wage, eternal life is a gift.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What we actually have in those verses is people choosing something--- participation with the people of God and the things of God, for whatever reason.They chose identification with them, their ceremonies perhaps, their joy and friendliness. Social reasons----whatever it might be. They identified themselves with believers but they did not believe beyond a superficial level. It was not a belief within their heart that could not be shaken because they truly believed it and could never walk away from it. But they did, as soon as the going got tough or something else captured their attention more. Because they were only choosing, not believing.

Wow, you totally rewrote the passage to fit a reformed theology bias. But I checked and it still says they were enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift. They partook of the Holy Spirit. Are you proposing that the Holy Spirit would allow superficial unconverted and insincere men to partake of Him? Are you saying that enlightenment is superficial?

How can we have a conversation if we so radically change scripture to fit our narratives?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The gospel is not hidden. It is not a secret. Walk into any church, turn on the tv, encounter people preaching the gospel anywhere, a person is exposed to it. Bibles are on bookshelves, often collecting dust. They are in motel rooms and libraries and bookstores. It is not a choice, it is truth. The word of God is not crying out "Choose me, choose me!" It cries out, "Believe me and live!"

And those who choose to believe will be saved.’

 

[Mercy_Shown]

So the question is not why do some choose Christ and some do not?

Now if I use your technique I will simply say, “ explain the virgin birth, explain the eternal existence of God etc.”

But the indications from scripture always point to pride. Think about rich men from the perspective of reformed theology. What would make it so hard for God to extend efficacious grace to them? They have no more a part in their salvation than does a poor man. Yet Jesus said it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

So the question is not why do some choose Christ and some do not? It is why do some believe and some do not. And the scriptures tell us. "Those He foreknew, He predestined, and called, and justified, and glorified." Those who He was giving to Christ He granted to be drawn to Christ. Those who are His sheep hear His voice. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." You simply don't like that, can't imagine a God who would do such a thing.

This is untrue. Of course I believe it and I’m so glad because he did it for me. Praise his name this is something he will do for anyone who will choose to submit to him.

No one will be left in the pit of slimy sin unless it is their own choice to remain there. Creating creatures to die in their own sin without any hope is an ungodly act.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

tell yourself the scriptures agree with you. But we are not supposed to imagine who God is, and create an image of Him that we are comfortable with. We are to know Him according to His self revelation, and believe Him.

And this is exactly what you just got through doing with Hebrews 6:4–6

 

[Arial]

When one chooses to reject Christ, they lose salvation. There is no contradiction here. One must work to be lost and one can’t work to be saved. Damnation is a wage, eternal life is a gift.

If one rejects Christ they never had salvation. If that were possible then Jesus would be lying when He said He would lose none that the Father gives Him. Paul would be lying when He said we are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. That is the contradiction. It is also a contradiction to say one is given eternal life but can lose eternal life. You have yet to address this. Is eternal life a theory or a maybe, or is it actually eternal?

 

[Arial]

Wow, you totally rewrote the passage to fit a reformed theology bias. But I checked and it still says they were enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift. They partook of the Holy Spirit. Are you proposing that the Holy Spirit would allow superficial unconverted and insincere men to partake of Him? Are you saying that enlightenment is superficial?

How can we have a conversation if we so radically change scripture to fit our narratives?

I in no way rewrote the passage. I am simply addressing one interpretation of those words, which defines their meaning by common practices in the church which they participated in and the benefits that were received from them. It goes like this:

Once Enlightened: had knowledge of God disclosed in the gospel message, (10:26; 1:9; 2 Cor 4:3-6)publically confessed in baptism (in early
Christian writings conversion and baptism were often termed "enlightenment".)
Tasted the heavenly gift: this phrase could be paired with "enlightenment" as a broad description of apparent conversion or it could refer to participation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Partakers of the Holy Spirit: they had some experience of the gifts of the Holy Spirit but it is not necessary to conclude that regeneration is intended. People who lack the true faith may in some sense experience the work of God without being saved. An example would be God answering the prayers of His people to heal that person even if they do not have saving faith.
Powers of the age to come: the signs and wonders that accompanied the apostolic age.

In that case, the falling away would be irreversible (1 John 5:16) Christian salvation is final (10:4) and this, if made obstinately and would be and impenitently. 1 John 2:19 tells us they were never a part of the Christian community in the first place. This is certainly a possibility and we actually do seen it happening in our world, though at that level it is probably rare. We also see men appointing themselves as pastors, teaching the things of the gospel, having all the appearance and words of being a Christian, whose sole purpose in becoming a pastor was to make money and gain influence and power, who have no saving faith at all, and do not even believe what they say. Jesus called them wolves in sheeps clothing.

On the other hand, there is the view that sees this warning in Hebrews as a hypothetical. If one were to do this, then this is what would happen. In which case the "enlightened" would mean conversion but in a hypothetical sense. And given that the author is writing to Jewish Christians, or Gentiles previously converted to Judaism before becoming Christians, (the recipients were obviously familiar with the Law and Prophets ) and they were very immature. Knowing and believing it the person and work of Christ, truly converted. But they were immature in training in righteousness---the pursuit of it, as being as important as all the other doctrines, as Christ is our righteousness. Righteousness is what is being restored. Given the history of the day, because of persecution from both unbelieving Jews and Gentile unbelievers they were both tempted to return to their old comfort, Judaism, or to the godless behavior and practice of pagans. They were discouraged, and this letter is a letter of instruction and encouragement to stand firm in the face of suffering.

In either case, and personally think the two views are not mutually exclusive, it is not a passage that is discussing whether or not a person has a choice to choose Christ.

 

[Arial]

And those who choose to believe will be saved.’

That is your story and you will stick to it no matter what---even if you are unable to biblically demonstrate that it is true. And even if it has been biblically demonstrated that it is not true.

 

[Arial]

Now if I use your technique I will simply say, “ explain the virgin birth, explain the eternal existence of God etc.”

Don't take what I say out of context in order to manipulate the narrative. Here is the context.

So the question is not why do some choose Christ and some do not? It is why do some believe and some do not. And the scriptures tell us. "Those He foreknew, He predestined, and called, and justified, and glorified." Those who He was giving to Christ He granted to be drawn to Christ. Those who are His sheep hear His voice. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." You simply don't like that, can't imagine a God who would do such a thing. And so find a way to imagine Him differently than what He says and tell yourself the scriptures agree with you. But we are not supposed to imagine who God is, and create an image of Him that we are comfortable with. We are to know Him according to His self revelation, and believe Him.

Now, address that.

But the indications from scripture always point to pride. Think about rich men from the perspective of reformed theology. What would make it so hard for God to extend efficacious grace to them? They have no more a part in their salvation than does a poor man. Yet Jesus said it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

That is just you having made a way for your narrative so as not to have to actually address what I said. But, does your example say it is hard for God to extend efficacious grace to the wealthy---which you have rewritten as pride, and having done that apropo of nothing---return it back to the rich man. The problem with the rich is it is very difficult for them to see their need, and in the cultural context, the rich were considered to be the favored of God. That is why the question "Who then can be saved?" What was Jesus' response. "With man it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible." Chew on that for awhile from a neutral position.

 

[Arial]

This is untrue. Of course I believe it and I’m so glad because he did it for me. Praise his name this is something he will do for anyone who will choose to submit to him.

No one will be left in the pit of slimy sin unless it is their own choice to remain there. Creating creatures to die in their own sin without any hope is an ungodly act.

That does not even attempt to address what I said. You simply restate your position without examination. And if you notice, you first say something is untrue and then say you believe it. And you are not submitting to His declaration that He is sovereign, but change His sovereignty to be so sovereign that He sovereignly chooses to give up His sovereignty----which removes all biblical meaning from the term and you so so without a shred of biblical evidence. You are not submitting to "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion of whom I have compassion." You are not submitting to "those He foreknew, He also predestined,and those He predestined, He also called, and those He called, He also justified." (Notice all the He's in there.) And why are you not submitting to that? SInce the cry is my will must be free to do as I choose or else" I would guess there is a great deal of hidden pride there.

 

[Arial]

And this is exactly what you just got through doing with Hebrews 6:4–6

Explain that to me. How did I do that? How is interpreting Heb 6:4-6 according to what God says about Himself, (the part of my post you omitted) interpreting it according to my bias?

This is what God says about Himself: "I will have mercy of whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

This is what Paul says about God: "Those he foreknew, He also predestined, and all those He predestined, He also called, and all those He called, He also justified." Those are not the only verses upon which I base my interpretation of Heb 6:4-6 as to not be stating that it is mankind who chooses God, that all are given equal opportunity to choose their own fate, but they are enough.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Explain that to me. How did I do that? How is interpreting Heb 6:4-6 according to what God says about Himself, (the part of my post you omitted) interpreting it according to my bias?

This is what God says about Himself: "I will have mercy of whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

This is what Paul says about God: "Those he foreknew, He also predestined, and all those He predestined, He also called, and all those He called, He also justified." Those are not the only verses upon which I base my interpretation of Heb 6:4-6 as to not be stating that it is mankind who chooses God, that all are given equal opportunity to choose their own fate, but they are enough.

See this post https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-powerless-arminian-jesus.1593/post-67319

 

[Mercy_Shown]

That does not even attempt to address what I said. You simply restate your position without examination. And if you notice, you first say something is untrue and then say you believe it. And you are not submitting to His declaration that He is sovereign, but change His sovereignty to be so sovereign that He sovereignly chooses to give up His sovereignty----which removes all biblical meaning from the term and you so so without a shred of biblical evidence. You are not submitting to "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion of whom I have compassion." You are not submitting to "those He foreknew, He also predestined,and those He predestined, He also called, and those He called, He also justified." (Notice all the He's in there.) And why are you not submitting to that? SInce the cry is my will must be free to do as I choose or else" I would guess there is a great deal of hidden pride there.

I'm sorry. I will spell it out for you from now on. It is untrue that I "...simply don't like that, can't imagine a God who would do such a thing." Why? because He did it for me.

It is also untrue that I am,"... not submitting to 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion of whom I have compassion.'" That I am not submitting to 'those He foreknew, He also predestined, and those He predestined, He also called, and those He called, He also justified.'" Why? Because he did that to me. But I am saying that all of this wonderfulness from God can be rejected by people who were also enlightened and partook of the Holy Spirit. A person can reject the justification God obtained through the cross for all humanity. We are no longer dumbstruck robots whose wills have been manipulated for weal or woe.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Don't take what I say out of context in order to manipulate the narrative. Here is the context.

Now, address that.

That is just you having made a way for your narrative so as not to have to actually address what I said. But, does your example say it is hard for God to extend efficacious grace to the wealthy---which you have rewritten as pride, and having done that apropo of nothing---return it back to the rich man. The problem with the rich is it is very difficult for them to see their need, and in the cultural context, the rich were considered to be the favored of God. That is why the question "Who then can be saved?" What was Jesus' response. "With man it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible." Chew on that for awhile from a neutral position.

 

[Arial]

A person can reject the justification God obtained through the cross for all humanity.

They can reject Christ. In which case they are not justified. And if God obtained justification for all humanity through the cross, then all men are justified, faith not even being a factor. Prior to regeneration every one is in a state of being at enmity with God,, not just because we sin, but also because of the reason we sin. In Adam we are a sinful being, and not only is God our enemy, we are His. No way will even a hint of sin be allowed into His presence. That is not a choice, that is who we are. Coming to Christ is an option and it is the only other option there is, and the only way to be reconciled to God.

You say God gave every man enough grace so that the option became a choice. Even though Romans 9 says otherwise. Romans 9 says it is God's choice to show mercy on whom he shows mercy. You have it backwards. God shows mercy on those who choose Him. "By grace you are saved through faith, and that is not of yourself but is a gift of God. Faith is given by God and if He gives us faith, we have faith. We possess it. It becomes a part of us. In this scenario do you think there are any in His kingdom shaking their fist at Him saying "Why have you made me like this?!" "Why have you forced me into your kingdom against my will?"

 

[Arial]

See this post https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-powerless-arminian-jesus.1593/post-67319

What about it?

 

[Arial]

I'm sorry. I will spell it out for you from now on. It is untrue that I "...simply don't like that, can't imagine a God who would do such a thing." Why? because He did it for me.

It is also untrue that I am,"... not submitting to 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion of whom I have compassion.'" That I am not submitting to 'those He foreknew, He also predestined, and those He predestined, He also called, and those He called, He also justified.'" Why? Because he did that to me. But I am saying that all of this wonderfulness from God can be rejected by people who were also enlightened and partook of the Holy Spirit. A person can reject the justification God obtained through the cross for all humanity. We are no longer dumbstruck robots whose wills have been manipulated for weal or woe.

You have said over and over that you cannot imagine a God who would choose some to save and not give the rest a chance (is how you put it.) And so far you have scorned or ignored everything I have said about "enlightened" and "partook" of the Holy Spirit, but never refuted it or addressed WHAT I SAID. Conversation is a two way street.

And there is no need for the insult to my intelligence. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I think you probably understand what I am saying. But you don't like it so you don't want it to be true, and so you say it isn't, even though you have no scriptural evidence that what you say is true. Back to what I said that you deny.

In the OT, under the law, the written code, in which the covenant was a covenant of works, and the works were clearly spelled out, there was a "Do this and live." With curses for not doing it. That is God clearly giving a choice. And it was not dealing with salvation unto eternal life which is only through faith in Christ, even then. SOme, not many, actually had obedience from faith.

Where does He give a clear designation of "Choose this" and live in the NT when it refers to believing in Christ? Your view actually makes the NC also a covenant of works, even though the only work is choosing. But it is a covenant of promise and the promise is believe in Me and I will give you eternal life. He does not say "Choose me and I will give you eternal life." And we do choose Him as @makesends has been pointing out, but not until we have been born again. John 3.