The powerless Arminian Jesus

[Mercy_Shown]

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.

That is what you say. But I say that is your skewed perception of it.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

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.

You spend much time telling others what they think or do not think. You have no scriptural evidence of what you say is true; you state scripture and interpret it as you want. How about we stick to what it says? The way you interpret Romans 9 leads to a contradiction with Heb 6. In order to maintain your view of Romans 9, you have to skew Hebrews 6, but you are between a rock and a hard place. Either the persons described as having been enlightened tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the coming age were never saved, or they were saved and fell away.

If they were never saved, it is evidence that an unsaved person can be enlightened and partake of the Holy Spirit. This would support the ability to make a decision concerning submission to God.

Now we know that to fall away, one must have an elevated object from which they are falling away. The only thing that seems possible in this scenario would be God.

Now, if these were saved individuals, then this is evidence that people can reject their salvation by choosing to withdraw their submission to God. Either way, this passage supports a choice.

There is nothing in Romans 9 that precludes a choice. Roman 9 is a statement of God's sovereignty, and being sovereign means He can grant everyone a choice. Even predestined people. There is nothing about pre-destination to suggest it is forced. It simply means a destination pre-determined by God for those who submit to His will. But they are free to leave at anytime.

The only way to understand Romans 9 and Hebrews 6 without skewing one or the other is through the free-will choice God gives us.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What about it?

If you can't see it, you can't see it.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

They can reject Christ. In which case they are not justified.

We agree then, they have a choice.

And if God obtained justification for all humanity through the cross, then all men are justified, faith not even being a factor.

Some Calvinists believe this. All men are justified if they do not resist the Holy Spirit.

Prior to regeneration every one is in a state of being at enmity with God,,

God reconciled the world to himself through Jesus Christ.

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.

No, it doesn't.

Romans 9 says it is God's choice to show mercy on whom he shows mercy.

Have you studied Exodus 33 to understand what God was saying? God is sovereign, and he shows mercy on whomsoever he will. This does not preclude Him from showing mercy on those who choose to submit to Him. It is a statement about God's sovereignty, but it does not say how or in what form He will exercise that sovereignty.

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.

Yes, and gifts can be rejected, neglected, and spurned.

Faith is given by God and if He gives us faith, we have faith.

Unless we reject it. Unless we seek the fleshpots of Egypt. Did God decide not to give Isreal faith? Did He leave them to kill the prophets and reject Christ so that Christ had to weep over the city and lament how much He wanted them to come to him but they would not? That is crazy to believe.

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?"

You are thinking one-dimensionally on the force. Force is not always with brute strength. Changing one's will without one's consent is force. If God did that Isreal could have been saved with a flick of His finger.

 

[Arial]

No, it doesn't.

Welcome to the forum Shroom.

 

[Arial]

It is a statement about God's sovereignty, but it does not say how or in what form He will exercise that sovereignty.

So then you decide how He does it? But in Romans 9 it does tell us by connecting it to the potter and the clay. He does it by choosing and molding. Nothing to do with choices of the clay.

 

[Arial]

Some Calvinists believe this.

Some? You can always find someone who believes something so what kind of a defense is that. A person could just make it up. Give me an example of any Calvinist that believes that Jesus justified all men and there is no need for faith.

God reconciled the world to himself through Jesus Christ.

Then all are reconciled. None will be in hell.

Yes, and gifts can be rejected, neglected, and spurned.

What does faith mean in the Eph 2 passage---by grace you are saved through faith?

You are thinking one-dimensionally on the force. Force is not always with brute strength.

Did I say it was? What difference does that make? When you use the word against irresistible grace, are you not using it in a negative way, as though no matter what way God does it, it is not something He should do----we must all be FREE. The force used by God in effectual grace is against the powers of darkness, the very cross, to pull us out of the mire.

 

[Rella]

The force used by God in effectual grace is against the powers of darkness, the very cross, to pull us out of the mire.

May the force be with you! (Sorry, could not resist )

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Then all are reconciled. None will be in hell.

Not if people do not want to reconcile back to him.

 

[makesends]

Either the persons described as having been enlightened tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the coming age were never saved, or they were saved and fell away.

Has nobody pointed out to you, that the persons referred to in Hebrews are hypothetical, and that the writer thinks better of the recipient of his letter? It is a warning at best? —and more likely than just a warning, it is demonstration of the contradiction, the impossibility of a believer falling away. There is no such person. They were not "saved and fell away".

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What does faith mean in the Eph 2 passage---by grace you are saved through faith?

Faith

Has nobody pointed out to you, that the persons referred to in Hebrews are hypothetical, and that the writer thinks better of the recipient of his letter? It is a warning at best? —and more likely than just a warning, it is demonstration of the contradiction, the impossibility of a believer falling away. There is no such person. They were not "saved and fell away".

then has no one pointed out to you that Romans 9:19-24 is hypothetical where as Heb 6:4-6 is not. You pronounce it so to accommodate a false doctrine.

 

[Arial]

You spend much time telling others what they think or do not think.

Do I? Look at that again. That sentence begins "I think---"

You have no scriptural evidence of what you say is true; you state scripture and interpret it as you want. How about we stick to what it says?

I do stick to what it says, but everything must be interpreted. Everything. I do not confine by interpretation to only a particular text, or even to only its surrounding text, but to the whole counsel of God. Starting with theology, for doctrine must come out of theology. We have reached a point of only debating doctrine and if our theology is different the doctrine will be, and if the doctrine is, so will the interpretation be.


I think in order for doctrine to be sound, it must never contradict or remove itself from who God is as self revealed. So I have given evidence, and you do not call it evidence because either 1. our theology is different or 2. you are not considering who God reveals Himself to be as He reveals it, but only the particular words in a passage you are interpreting, and according to your already formed doctrine or forming a doctrine (interpretation) without checking it against who God is. As a result, we are getting nowhere. So let's start over with theology. What does He actually say about Himself that would relate to a particular scripture that has come up and that I have said you do not surrender to. Just so we can get back on track of theology based doctrine, and then maybe from that we can get back to the topic of saving grace and whether it is actually given by God or merely offered by God.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, ir order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Taking who God is into consideration, give me your definition of "foreknew."

 

[Arial]

Faith

Faith in something has to have content. It isn't just a word.

 

[Arial]

Not if people do not want to reconcile back to him.

Reconciled is reconciled. No one in their natural state wants to be reconciled to God. They would have to give up all of their sin and their supposed autonomy. So why do some "choose" to believe and some don't. Also, is there anywhere in the Bible where you see God asking us for permission to do something?

 

[makesends]

Faith

then has no one pointed out to you that Romans 9:19-24 is hypothetical where as Heb 6:4-6 is not. You pronounce it so to accommodate a false doctrine.

They are both hypotheticals. Romans 9 is referring to a hypothetical person complaining, or reasoning, that God is not fair to have mercy on some and to harden others. However, it is not saying that God only hypothetically has mercy on some and hypothetically hardens others, since it points out an actual case earlier of him choosing Jacob over Esau. Don't separate 9:19-24 from the rest of Romans.

Hebrews 6:4-8 demonstrates no actual case where what I have called 'hypothetical' is actual. Instead, it goes immediately into a paragraph beginning with, "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation" Don't separate Scripture from Scripture.

 

[Arial]

The way you interpret Romans 9 leads to a contradiction with Heb 6. In order to maintain your view of Romans 9, you have to skew Hebrews 6, but you are between a rock and a hard place. Either the persons described as having been enlightened tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the coming age were never saved, or they were saved and fell away.

The way I interpret Romans 9 leads to a contradiction in the way you interpret Heb 6. Let's get that straight. And your either or left out what I said about it----which you never addressed when I went to the trouble to outline two common interpretations of those words in that context. One of which is that it is a hypothetical, and given the before and after of 4-6 of Romans is quite likely. Which I also have outlined for you and it was never addressed.So don't tell me I am not doing something and that I put myself between a rock and a hard place, if you will not even consider/read what I have said, except for the parts that are convenient.

If they were never saved, it is evidence that an unsaved person can be enlightened and partake of the Holy Spirit. This would support the ability to make a decision concerning submission to God.

You would have to demonstrate from within the scriptures and theological logic, that one can lose their salvation, and since that can't be done, and I have already showed you why it can't from scripture (also never discussed), you cannot in any way shape or form use this passage to prove that believing in the person and work of Christ is an informed decision. That one can believe and also reject believing.

Now we know that to fall away, one must have an elevated object from which they are falling away. The only thing that seems possible in this scenario would be God.

And how does one get to God in the first place?

Now, if these were saved individuals, then this is evidence that people can reject their salvation by choosing to withdraw their submission to God. Either way, this passage supports a choice.

What if that they weren't saved individuals? What if that is just your interpretation and it is incorrect? There is a way to settle that, but it is very difficult if one is starting with the premise that we can be shown the gospel and understand the gospel and then either accept or reject it. It causes one to not hear the impact of "My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me. All that the Father gives me will come to me AND I WILL LOSE NONE OF THEM." Or that they were purchased with His blood. Or that eternal life given is eternal. But the Bible does say those things and whether one gets it or not, Heb 6:4-6 cannot be referring to saved people---so out goes the idea that it supports your accept or reject theory.

There is nothing in Romans 9 that precludes a choice. Roman 9 is a statement of God's sovereignty, and being sovereign means He can grant everyone a choice. Even predestined people. There is nothing about pre-destination to suggest it is forced. It simply means a destination pre-determined by God for those who submit to His will. But they are free to leave at anytime.

1. How can one who is Sovereign (we are talking about God here) will to become not sovereign at any point, in any place, for any reason? And where is your evidence that He did besides interpretations that say He did because He could?
2.If He grants predestined people a choice it is no longer predestination.
3.You are right that there is nothing about predestination to suggest it is forced, although you are really saying that if predestination is really predestination it would be force. So you change the definition of predestination or try to by saying it only means predestinated to something the rest of the scripture will not support. They were predestined to be justified and glorified. So, they were predestined to be given to Christ.

The only way to understand Romans 9 and Hebrews 6 without skewing one or the other is through the free-will choice God gives us.

That is funny. The only way to understand Romans 9 and Heb 6 without skewing one or the other is to keep the theology from which doctrine comes, consistent with what God reveals about HImself. Our free will has nothing to to do with it. Doing what you suggest creates a mountain of other contradictions concerning Christ and HIm crucified.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The way I interpret Romans 9 leads to a contradiction in the way you interpret Heb 6. Let's get that straight. And your either or left out what I said about it----which you never addressed when I went to the trouble to outline two common interpretations of those words in that context. One of which is that it is a hypothetical, and given the before and after of 4-6 of Romans is quite likely. Which I also have outlined for you and it was never addressed.So don't tell me I am not doing something and that I put myself between a rock and a hard place, if you will not even consider/read what I have said, except for the parts that are convenient.

Ok, if you agree to quit telling me what I am thinking.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

You would have to demonstrate from within the scriptures and theological logic, that one can lose their salvation, and since that can't be done, and I have already showed you why it can't from scripture (also never discussed), you cannot in any way shape or form use this passage to prove that believing in the person and work of Christ is an informed decision. That one can believe and also reject believing.

Then these were saved individuals that fell away. It is one or the other.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

And your either or left out what I said about it----which you never addressed when I went to the trouble to outline two common interpretations of those words in that context. One of which is that it is a hypothetical, and given the before and after of 4-6 of Romans is quite likely. Which I also have outlined for you and it was never addressed.So don't tell me I am not doing

I have no idea what you are talking about but you do demand more than you are willing to give.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

And how does one get to God in the first place?

The same way everyone does. Through Jesus Christ