Posted on 10/16/2003 1:17:09 PM PDT by ksen
Can you please give us the reference from which you cite? (Or did you just make this up?)
Furthermore, if that indeed came from an accepted authroity, is it the ~ONLY~ accepted definition from that authority.
In other words, while drstevej and I acknowledge that "receive" can be voitional, we also have given you many examples where "receive" is most definately not voitional, invitational, or permitted.
In opposition to this, you are contending that "receive" can ~ONLY~ be defined as "voitional", "invitational" or "permitted" entrance. Does your authority define "receive" as ONLY voitional?
Jean
Jesus is here talking about his apostles going to others. Does this mean: "He who you force yourself upon, will have me force myself upon them, and he who has me force myself upon them is forced upon by him who sent me." ???
This passage is speaking of the RECEPTIVITY of those the apostles preach to. If they permit the apostles, then they are permitting our trinitarian God entrance as well. "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 sup with him and he with me."
Matthew 18:5 - "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;
The notion that the child is forcing itself on the apostles is misguided. The verse is about RECEPTIVITY, i.e, volitional permitting of the child into one's world.
It is entirely clear that the word "receive" has a volitional element to the extent that one could almost use the word "permit" as a synonym.
Interestingly, elabov, the greek, has the basic thrust of "take."
xzins, that's not a verse about salvation. Jesus wrote that to a church, which by definition are already Believers. It is a verse about the restoration of fellowship between God and the estranged Believer.
ANY man = EACH person
What does Jesus REQUEST of EACH of them?
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent.
Hebrews 12 makes it clear that God only rebukes and chasten those who are already His children.
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.He 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
He 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
It is His children that are in need of repentance that He is inviting to sup with Him in restored fellowship.
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent.
Hebrews 12 makes it clear that God only rebukes and chasten those who are already His children.
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.He 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
He 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
It is His children that are in need of repentance that He is inviting to sup with Him in restored fellowship.
You have lost track of my assertion: That arminianism can fit all of these verses into their paradigm. They can. Your closing words where you say, "Does your authority define "receive" as ONLY volitional?" is exactly the POINT. If it can be seen in more ways than one, then you agree that they CAN (are able) to fit it into their paradigm and thereby see an alternative to your position.
And that's ALL that I'm saying. They are able to see it differently. "
So, in other words, you have no authorative source which defines "receive" as ~ONLY~ "permit entrance" or "voitional" or "invitational".
In other words, you just made that up.
But you have demonstrated ~my~ point -that in order for the Arminian to fit these passages into their "Free-Will" philosophical paradigm, they must change the definitions of words, limit the definitions of words, or add foreign concepts to a passage alltogether -as you have done with John 1:12.
"See my most recent post to Drstevej."
Unconvincing as it utilizes the logical fallacy of the False Dilemma: either we must voluntarily recieve or we must be forced.
In my previous example I gave evidence of how I "receive" a bacteria or germs that cause an illness. In that situation, the "receiving" is not forced nor is it voitional. My will is entirely absent from the process. When I recieved those germs, I was simply not aware. However, once I felt the effect of those germs, I couldn't help but get sick.
When Lazarus recieved life again, did he first have to "choose" to accept this life? Or did he suddenly find himself in a state of life -unaware of how he came to be in that state- from which he previously was not?
Jean
This one needs to be twisted quite a bit:
Acts 13
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
Somehow, the Arminians make this "and all who appointed themsleves for eternal life believed."
But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, they need to change things around substantially to make it, as you say, "fit".
Jean
Based on foreknowledge."
Perzactly!!!!
The Arminian position is such that they believe that God "foreknew" which men would "choose" him and persevere.
Since God must first "foreknow" what a man chooses, the Arminian has effectively reversed the order of this passage.
The Arminian now argues "and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life."
Again, you have demonstrated my point that Arminians must twist the Scriptures, change definitions of words and add foreign concepts to passages in order to make them "fit" with their "Free-Will" philosophical paradigm.
If God need let man be with his "choice", then God has not appointed man to anything. It is man who made the choice to believe and to persevere -therefore God needn't have appointed him to anything.
Furthermore, there is not one place in Scripture which tells us that God saved man based on his "foreknowledge" of man's acctions and choices. Not one!
Jean
THOSE he foreknew!!!!
The Apostle Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote down in the infallible Word of God that God foreknew ~PEOPLE~, not people's "choices".
Furthermore, it is only the people that God "foreknew" that were predestined. By implication, we know that there were people who God did not "foreknow". This is confirmed by the explicit testimony elsewhere in Scripture that there are those "workers of iniquity" that God "never knew"!!!
Matthew 723 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
By definition, God cannot "foreknow" someone he "never knew"!!!
Once again, you have demonstrated that you need to twist the wording of the Scriptures to make things "fit".
"This is basic stuff, Jean. This is Arminius' very first point. You're just playing games, so.....whatever."
It appears that it is you and Arminius who are playing the [word] games.
Again, you have demonstrated my point that you need to twist the words of Scripture to make things "fit" your "Free-Will" philosophical paradigm.
Jean
If that be the case then God foreordained all the lost to burn in hell..because he created them knowing that they would never be saved ...ummmm predestination to hell
As usual, you make these grand sweeping generalizations that indicate you simply don't understand our discussion.
We are discussing whether Arminianism can fit the scriptures into their paradigm. Yes, they can. And they do.
Then you come out with these grand aha's and gotcha's that demonstrate that you don't have the foggiest idea what's going on.
If I were a ground commander, I would never want you to be my intelligence officer. You cannot see through the eyes of your opponents.
Of course they fit "those whom he foreknew" into their paradigm. And they do it comfortably. They do it notwithstanding your "gotcha" that speaks so deeply to you about the word choice, or about those who aren't selected, or about anything. They've got those bases covered.
You fail to see that they don't see it your way. You fail to see that they don't have to see it your way. You fail to see that it CAN be constructed into a different looking teaching than the one to which you hold.
Yes, I agree. I have never denied that Arminians "fit" the Scriptures into their paradigm.
However, my point is that they need to twist the words of Scripture, change the definitions of words, and add words to Scripture to do so. You have amptly demonstrated this.
Furthermore, should we "fit" Scripture into our paradigms? Or should we fit our "paradigms" into Scripture???
I think you have admitted a great and sad truth about Arminianism, x. Arminians, as you profess, "fit" scripture into their paradigm.
Karl Barth -love him or revile him- once said that Theology is not the notebook to correct Scripture, but Scripture is the notebook to correct Theology.
It seems that you have admitted that Arminians believe that their Theology is what corrects the notebook of Scripture.
I believe everything you have demonstrated here about the Arminians attempt to "fit" Scripture to their "Free-Will" theological paradigm is evidence of this.
Jean
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.