Posted on 07/25/2002 7:23:40 AM PDT by xzins
5. John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
Calvinists argue that this passage teaches irresistible grace. The individual cannot refuse God's choice. Therefore, all those given to Christ will respond.
Arminians reply that "those given to me" in v. 37 are the same as those who "believe in him" in v. 40. In other words, when God foresees that some will believe, he gives them to Christ. See that in v. 45, those who have "heard and learned from the Father" are the ones who "come to me." It is written in the prophets, 'they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him COMES TO ME. This explains who are those who come to Him in v. 37 and they are the ones the Father gave to Christ. He FOREKNEW them.
6. You claim that those who are depraved cannot come to God for any reason. This is total inability and is an addition to total depravity that I reject because it is unbiblical. God can prepare a heart through conviction, enlightenment, conscience, etc., to receive. During that period of enlightenment sinners are able to receive. "As many as received him to them gave he power to become children of God.
This post has gotten far too long. We need to break it down into individuals points. I don't deal with long posts too often. The time required to write them and read them is difficult due to constant interruptions that I have.
Yep. Those verses simply say that unbelievers are out of the loop.
Yep HE gave them the power xzins....it was not self generated
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
You do need to finish your quotes xzins
I still believe you misstate the doctrine of depravity. In fact, I think your misunderstanding is so complete that I do not know where to begin. At every turn, when given an explanation of the doctrine, you substitute your concept for the biblical teaching.
This thread was originally on the topic of irresistable grace. You must want to claim that you did not resist the grace of God. If you did not, did that make you worthy of God's grace? If one can resist the grace of God, doesn't that mean that they are more powerful than God? You see, the problem with your theory is that error in this area of theology necessarily touches on others.
In the above verse, believing PRECEDES becoming a son of God.
Therefore, believing precedes regeneration.
Absolutely. "Those he FOREKNEW, he predestined."
Your statement that I am in error is certainly testimony to your disagreement with me, but it hardly constitutes evidence that you are correct and I am wrong.
This thread lists far more scripture affirming resistible grace than it does scripture which purports to document irresistible grace.
I just responded to the John 6:37 verse. There is a simple explanation based on verses 40 and 45 that demonstrate how it, too, fits into a free choice perspective.
As Luther note John is not speaking here of any work of man, great or small, but of the actual renewal and transformation of the old man, who is a son of the devil, into the new man that is the son of God. In this man is simply passive (as the term is used): he does nothing but the whole of him becomes something. John is speakingof this becoming: He says that we become the sons of God, by a power divinely given to us not by any power of free will inherent in us
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood,
read it xzins..not mans will Gods will...I know that Arminians do not like that but here it is...
You claim that God looked down into time and predestined according to whether one would "accept" Jesus. That is all well and good to you because you say that you have scripture backing this up. But the Devil quoted scripture to Eve and Jesus. You are responsible for the all of the consequences which flow from your theology. And at every turn you refuse to accept those consequences.
For example, in your "gospel" God found something worthy in you, in particular your willingness to accept Him. (By the way, you add to the word of God by implying that God's foreknowledge included a determination that you would accept Christ. That is not to be found in the text) Therefore, you do not believe that you were ever really and truly DEAD in your trespasses and sins because you had the power to accept Jesus as your Savior. You have said that God looked down the corrridor of time and found something that merited your salvation. That means you have a predestination conditioned on your native ability and your supposed works of righteousness (your ability to accept and actual acceptance of Christ). And by virtue of this one righteous act, you were chosen in eternity past. In your gospel you want to share the credit for salvation. In doing so, you make an open affront to the atonement wrought by Jesus on the cross. You are stating quiet clearly that Jesus did not do enough to save you. You had to help Him out. Therefore, when Jesus cried out His last words on the cross and gave up the ghost, it really was not finished under your gospel because all that atoning work would be for naught without your consent.
It only follows that your gospel has a grace that can be resisted because you have an atonement that is incomplete without your consent.
In short, the consequences of your theology and your so-called gospel is sinners that are not really dead in their sins, men that are active agents in their salvation and thereby deserve it and a Christ that only partially saves because man contributes to it. That is a man-centered theology. A theology in which you dictate to God the terms of your salvation. A theology that elevates man to the level of God. It not surprising that at every turn you refuse to accept or deal with the logical consequences of it. The reason is clear: it is a gospel that cannot save and in your heart you know it and do not want to throw your soul at the feet of Jesus for mercy.
Many Arminians are inconsistent. They usually acknowledge that they were truly dead in their sins and that God did all the work in their salvation. You are consistent. And in your consistency is your peril. By so callously treating the atonement of Jesus, I must assume in this discussion that you are not a Christian.
The honest answer to this question is either:
"God does the believing," or "the man does the believing."
Any other answer is simply a dishonest attempt to avoid the truth.
Hank
Xzins why did God need to predestine those that had already chosen Him?
It would be like going to the polls today to vote for President Bush..when that was already a done deal
I'm not real sure what your point is here, Rn. When someone believes they're born again. Regeneration at that point is the work of God. Where's the disagreement?
Do you hear someone saying that the regeneration is not the work of God? Once the person fulfills the covenant, i.e., he/she believes, that is the go ahead sign for God to do the regeneration work. What could be simpler?
I don't mean to offend any Lutheran brethren, but Luther is not someone I'd ever use. He has far too much baggage.
In that case you should probably wish to vacate this thread that I posted. Wouldn't want to get you all dirtied up associating with a Christian such as me.
51 "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it."
Resistible grace.
Augustine said it was the unpardonable sin. I think that saying that Christ was of the devil is worse, but there it is. Unbelief is unforgivable. So they (sinners -- Hank is so tough)must be able to commit it.
That is one heck of an accusation to make.
For my part when I reflect on the disputes which have produced such a lamentable division in Holland, I can hardly comprhend how men of genius could persuade themselves, that the dogmas of St. Augustine on Predestination and Grace are essential to the Reformation of Christianity; For there were many holy men, in the purest ages of the Church,who thought directly the reverse of the Father. Cannot we renounce the monstrous and ridiculous doctrine of Purgatory, the Indulgances, the false Traditions of the Church of Rome, and the Tyranny of the Pope, without believing in Absolute Predestination, and Irresistable Grace? What was thought of the hypothesis of the Bishop of Hippo, by all those respectable individuals who, struck with the absurdity and falsehood of the doctrines I have just enumerated, embraced the Reformation of the last century? Did they give themselves the trouble of examining whether it was true or false? Those difficult and abstract questions occupied the sole attention of the divines, who took it into their heads to form a completed system of Divinity; and among them who chose that employment, there were many who have more carefully examined the Holy Scripture, and Ecclesiastical Antiquity,preferred the moderate sentiments of the Greek Fathers. Even Calvin himself was not persuaded that his own notions respecting Predestination and Grace were essential to Religion; For he took the trouble of translating into French the Common Places of Melenchthon-who thought very differently from him on those controverted subjects, -and in the preface which he prefixed in that work, he bestows on the author all imaginable praise. Could he conscientiously have acted thus, if he had been persuaded that the sentiments of Melanchthon sapped the foundations of the Reformation? Many eminent Reformed Divines have openly maintained, that the doctrines of Universal Grace, of the Power to resist its operation and of Conditional Predestination, are in the number of those Articles which every one may believe without renouncing the principles of Religion. Some learned Hollanders had boldy defended this doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a Professor at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him. Their writings are still extent; although it is true, that certain ministers who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their productions into dispute; But the States of Holland uniformly checked this impetous zeal. The Professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melanchthon; and when Arminius was called to that University, his opinions were generally known; For he had declared them in the Church of Amsterdam, from which he had received very honourable testimonals. Gomarius, and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging, immediately that the difference between the sentiments which existed between them, did not at all concern the foundations of the Reformation. True it is, that Gomarus did not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken umbrage at the reputation of his new collegue, or the enemies of Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man, some time before, he looked upon as orthodox. (Le Vassor's History of the Reign of Louis XIII, cited in the Works of Arminius,(3Vol) Testimonies,p.liv)
It is God's will that all men be drawn to the Cross (Jn.12:32)
Because it is God's will, God provided the gift of salvation through grace (Eph.2:8-9)
Arminius or Wesley never denied that salvation was always in response, in obedience to God's will (1Jn.3:23)
Thus far Mr. Wesley agrees with Arminius, because he thinks that illustrious divine agreed thus far with the Scriptures, and all the early fathers of the Church. But if Arminius, (as the author of Pietas Oxoniensis affirms, in his letter to Dr. Adams,) "denied, that man's nature is totally corrupt; and asserted, that he hath still* a freedom of will to turn to God, but not without the assistance of grace," Mr. Wesley is no Arminian; for he strongly asserts the total fall of man, and constantly maintains that by nature man's will is only free to evil, and that Divine grace must first prevent, and then continually farther him, to make him willing and able to turn to God.
Perhaps I cannot go so far as to assume that xzins is not a Christian. However, persisting in error and impugning the gospel of Jesus Christ in so cavalier a way is not a mark of a gracious spirit.
This doctrine is highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ our Saviour. For (1) it entirly excludes him from that decree of predestination which predestinates the end; and it affirms that men were predestinated to be saved, before Christ was predestinated to save them; and thus, it argues that he is not the foundation of election. It denies, that Christ is the meritorious cause, that again obtained for us the salvation which we had lost, by placing him as only a subordinate cause of that salvation which had been already foreordained, and thus only a minister and instrument to apply that salvation unto us. (The Works of Arminius, Vol.1, p.630)It is Calvinism that preaches a 'false Gospel' that is why Calvinistic soul winners do not preach it, they preach like Arminians.
By the way, since you have no desire to confront the questions I have raised, do you really feel comfortable with a system in which man's will can resist a sovereign God? Please answer that question. In addition, if you Arminians truly believe that Jesus died for all and desires that all be saved, why would he allow man to resist him and thereby thwart the application of redemption? Please answer that question. Do you truly believe that human will is the lynch pin of salvation? Please answer that question. If you believe that it is, how there is be any real assurance? A person who "decided" to follow Jesus on Sunday can "decide" to stop following Him on a Tuesday. In such a case, under your theology, I am saved only as long as I want to be saved? How can there be any assurance under your "gospel?" Please answer that question.
At this point, I no longer want to hear of verses that appear to support your position. Deal with the logical consequences of that position as presented in the questions I have raised. It appears to me that you do not have answers.
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.