What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Fate... Free Will vs Predestination

OzSpen said:
JLB,

Scriptures are used to back up Arminian teaching. Here are a few examples: FACTS of salvation.

Oz
Click to expand...


Spencer,

I’m trying to avoid links to websites and so forth.

I’m sure every denomination or sect or group, develops their doctrine or dogma or catechism from the scriptures.

Since we have so many different denominations or groups that disagree, why not just stick to the scriptures.


If you believe Calvinism is based on the scriptures, then let’s use scripture, and the words of scripture, and what these words of scripture mean.



JLB
 
OzSpen said:
JLB,

I also point people to the Scriptures, but as a teacher of God's Word I sometimes need to explain further. I've attempted to do this in my 2 articles on the Trinity:
I can quote Scripture until I'm blue in the face, but if I don't explain Scripture I'm not being faithful as one who 'correctly handles the word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15 NIV).

I consider, It’s a sin to bore God’s people with God’s Word

Oz
Click to expand...
Oz,
I understand JLB's point and, maybe, on this site, the bible should be used as much as possible.

I've used links sometimes when I cannot go into detail and the link agrees totally with my belief (or V V!).

Having had to teach our faith to children up to the age of about 11, I also have had to use outside sources to explain certain concepts. For instance: What is a sacrament? Does the bible really explain this? I've never checked but I doubt it.

I feel it can become a problem when we start to quote outside sources to support our belief...like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Westminster Confession, etc. This really is not acceptable except in rare cases to show something or other,,,but not for support.

God's word is powerful and effective.
I like using the bible for support.
 
JLB said:
I would never try to teach people a from a word that doesn’t appear in the scriptures.

Why not use the biblical word, Godhead?


JLB
Click to expand...
Sorry J....
But most people use the word Trinity and wouldn't even know what Godhead means.

However, I do agree with what you're attempting to do here and I've always used the bible for support of doctrinal issues.

I also agree that it's sad we don't all use the same language.
 
wondering said:
Hi Oz,

I don't know too much about Arminianism but I do think I agree with that more than TULIP which, for me, is totally incorrect from the T to the P.

However, I do find the linked article rather confusing.

I like this better: (although there's much less info).

The five points of Arminianism (from Jacobus Arminius 1559-1609) are in contrast to the five points of Calvinism. The Arminian five points are

  • Human Free Will--This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.
  • Conditional Election--God chose people for salvation based on His foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.
  • Universal Atonement--The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
  • Resistable Grace--The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
  • Fall from Grace--The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

source: https://carm.org/dictionary-five-points-arminianism
Click to expand...

wondering,

CARM is a Calvinistic source by Matt Slick, a Presbyterian minister, and I don't find those points to be consistent with the 5 points of Arminianism.

Historically, TULIP developed from the Synod of Dordt (1618-19), which was to counter the Arminianism that was emerging through the Five Articles of the Remonstrants (1610).

Dordt was a kangaroo court because all members of the Synod who came up with TULIP were Calvinists. No other position could be delivered from that Synod, which has become the hallmark of Calvinism.

You can read more on Arminianism from The Society of Evangelical Arminians.

You might find this article helpful from a Reformed/Classical Arminian, Roger Olson:
'What's wrong with Calvinism?' (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Oz
 
OzSpen said:
I can quote Scripture until I'm blue in the face, but if I don't explain Scripture I'm not being faithful as one who 'correctly handles the word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15 NIV).
Click to expand...

The scripture you quoted actually mean the opposite of what you are claiming. It doesn’t mean you are to “explain” the scriptures, but to be straightforward with the scriptures, when you teach from them.


It also violates what Paul says just a few verses later...

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 2 Timothy 3:14-4:2



Explaining the scriptures mean you are implementing your own commentary, which is your own private interpretation of the scriptures.


Explain scripture, but use the words of scripture in your explanation.


Our discussion of what the scriptures say and mean should not violate the straightforward meaning.




JLB
 
wondering said:
Oz,
I understand JLB's point and, maybe, on this site, the bible should be used as much as possible.

I've used links sometimes when I cannot go into detail and the link agrees totally with my belief (or V V!).

Having had to teach our faith to children up to the age of about 11, I also have had to use outside sources to explain certain concepts. For instance: What is a sacrament? Does the bible really explain this? I've never checked but I doubt it.

I feel it can become a problem when we start to quote outside sources to support our belief...like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Westminster Confession, etc. This really is not acceptable except in rare cases to show something or other,,,but not for support.

God's word is powerful and effective.
I like using the bible for support.
Click to expand...

wondering,

I also agree with using the Bible for support and as my primary source of God's revelation to humanity. However, I live in a secular Australian culture that no longer accepts Billy Graham's theme, 'The Bible says'.

How do I deal with the proclamation of the biblical message when people no longer believe the Bible to be God's Word? This is my approach as we approach Easter and the celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus:
Oz
 
JLB said:
Please share the scriptures that teach this.
Click to expand...
[Ephesians 1:3-14 NASB] 3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, [that is,] the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.

[Romans 9:11-13, 21-24 NASB] 11 for though [the twins] were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to [His] choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." ... 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And [He did so] to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 [even] us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
 
JLB said:
The scripture you quoted [2 Tim 2:15] actually mean the opposite of what you are claiming. It doesn’t mean you are to “explain” the scriptures, but to be straightforward with the scriptures, when you teach from them.
Click to expand...

JLB,

The exegesis of 2 Tim 2:15 involves this drawing out (ek) from Scripture:

Give diligence (spoudason). First aorist active imperative of spoudazw, old word, as in 1 Thessalonians 2:17 ; Galatians 2:10 . To present (parasthsai). First aorist active infinitive of paristhmi as in Colossians 1:22 Colossians 1:28 . Approved unto God (dokimon twi qewi). Dative case qewi with dokimon, predicate accusative, old adjective (from decomai), for which see 1 Corinthians 11:19 ; 2 Corinthians 10:18 . A workman (ergathn). See 2 Corinthians 11:3 ; Philippians 3:2 . That needeth not to be ashamed (anepaiscunton). Late double compound verbal adjective (a privative, epaiscunw), in Josephus and here alone. Handling aright (orqotomounta). Present active participle of orqotomew, late and rare compound (orqotomo), cutting straight, orqo and temnw), here only in N.T. It occurs in Proverbs 3:6 ; Proverbs 11:5 for making straight paths (odou) with which compare Hebrews 12:13 and "the Way" in Acts 9:2 . Theodoret explains it to mean ploughing a straight furrow. Parry argues that the metaphor is the stone mason cutting the stones straight since temnw and orqo are so used. Since Paul was a tent-maker and knew how to cut straight the rough camel-hair cloth, why not let that be the metaphor? Certainly plenty of exegesis is crooked enough (crazy-quilt patterns) to call for careful cutting to set it straight (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 2 Tim 2:15).​

Robertson was one of the finest NT Greek scholars of the 20th century. He shows that 'handling aright' means cutting straight, ploughing a straight furrow, cutting straight the rough camel-hair cloth of Paul the tent-maker. Using that metaphor. Robertson applied this to 'crooked' exegesis that needs to be carefully cut straight (to agree with Scripture).

Robertson has done the hard work of a Greek exegete that simply quoting the Scripture will not do.

Seems like you and I are on different pages in theological discussion.

Oz
 
OzSpen said:
wondering,

CARM is a Calvinistic source by Matt Slick, a Presbyterian minister, and I don't find those points to be consistent with the 5 points of Arminianism.

Historically, TULIP developed from the Synod of Dordt (1618-19), which was to counter the Arminianism that was emerging through the Five Articles of the Remonstrants (1610).

Dordt was a kangaroo court because all members of the Synod who came up with TULIP were Calvinists. No other position could be delivered from that Synod, which has become the hallmark of Calvinism.

You can read more on Arminianism from The Society of Evangelical Arminians.

You might find this article helpful from a Reformed/Classical Arminian, Roger Olson:
'What's wrong with Calvinism?' (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

Oz
Click to expand...
Hi Oz...
thanks.
Actually, I know about Calvinism more than Arminianism,,,although I get accused of being one all the time.

I'll have to read your link again but when I'm more awake!
It's past 11 pm here and almost time to log off.

I only think it's relevant to know about persons such as Calvin and Luther and Arminius so that we could discuss ideas on these forums....otherwise, I really don't understand the value of knowing what they believed.

I DO like knowing what the ECFs believed as they learned directly from the Apostles.
 
atpollard said:
[Eph 1:4 NASB] 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Click to expand...
Actually, I quoted Eph 1:4 to you first and asked you to exegete it.

God did NOT choose us before the foundation of the world.

God chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world.

Genesis 3.15....God already had a plan for our salvation....

God chose us to be saved IN HIM,,, In Christ,,,In the Savior..before the foundation of the world.

God did not choose anyone to be saved. If you could get this from your mind since it is NOT IN SCRIPTURE,,,all the rest of these verses would become clear as day.

Ephesians 1:4-5 the living bible:
Long ago, even before He made the world, God chose us to be His very own THROUGH WHAT CHRIST WOULD DO FOR US....He decided then to make us holy in His eyes. without a single fault -- we who stand before Him covered in His love.
His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family by sending Jesus Christ to die for us. And He did this because He wanted to.

And who are these persons that belong to God's family through Jesus Christ?

The answer is in verse 13:
And because of what Christ did, all you others too, who HEARD THE GOOD NEWS about HOW TO BE SAVED, and TRUSTED CHRIST, were marked as belonging to Christ by the Holy Spirit, who long ago had been promised to all of us Christians.

They heard the good news
about
How to be saved.

We are saved by hearing the good news and accepting.
We hear the good news.
We accept and believe what we hear.
We are saved.
 
JLB said:
I get that about people being more familiar with the word Trinity.


Honestly, most people that teach the Trinity don’t understand what their teaching.

I’m sure Oz does, but many people actually get it wrong.






JLB
Click to expand...
I don't know that anybody understands the Trinity/Godhead.
But you get to understand it a lot better after explaining it many times!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB
wondering said:
Actually, I quoted Eph 1:4 to you first and asked you to exegete it.
Click to expand...
[Eph 1:4 NASB] 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

Exegesis:
  • “He” = GOD
  • “chose” = chose (past tense of choose), to select at some time in the past.
  • “us” = saved Christians.
  • “He chose us” = God selected saved Christians at some time in the past.
  • “in Him” = in Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead. “in Christ” generally refers to the mode of our justification in scripture ... so this is HOW God saves, not when.
  • “before the foundation of the world” = a point in time long before we were born. This is the WHEN of ”He chose us”.
  • Thus God chose US before we were born to be saved in Christ.
 
atpollard said:
How is one “in Christ” and unsaved?
Click to expand...

Please post to the scripture you are referring to.


Jesus told us we must remain “in Him”.


Here’s how the scriptures instruct us to remain
“In Christ”.


Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24



JLB
 
OzSpen said:
wondering,

I also agree with using the Bible for support and as my primary source of God's revelation to humanity. However, I live in a secular Australian culture that no longer accepts Billy Graham's theme, 'The Bible says'.

How do I deal with the proclamation of the biblical message when people no longer believe the Bible to be God's Word? This is my approach as we approach Easter and the celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus:
Oz
Click to expand...
As you know,,,I read the above article and like it.

I really don't mention the bible much when speaking to non-believers unless it's a really serious conversation. They just turn off and tell you it's circular reasoning.

On this site, however, I do like to use the bible.
 
atpollard said:
[Eph 1:4 NASB] 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

Exegesis:
  • “He” = GOD
  • “chose” = chose (past tense of choose), to select at some time in the past.
  • “us” = saved Christians.
  • “He chose us” = God selected saved Christians at some time in the past.
  • “in Him” = in Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead. “in Christ” generally refers to the mode of our justification in scripture ... so this is HOW God saves, not when.
  • “before the foundation of the world” = a point in time long before we were born. This is the WHEN of ”He chose us”.
  • Thus God chose US before we were born to be saved in Christ.
Click to expand...
I'm not discussing WHEN....I said from the beginning of the world, or before the beginning of the world.

What I'm discussing is a word YOU used above and even capitalized....

HOW

Ephesians 1:4-6 is HOW God is going to save us....
by being IN HM. Those IN HIM will be saved.

It is ALWAYS HOW because God wishes that all would be saved:
1 Timothy 2:3-4
3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jesus gave Himself as a ransom FOR ALL
1 Timothy 2:6
Not universalism...but FOR ALL that would believe in Him.


2 Peter 3:9
9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

How could the Lord wish for all to come to repentance if He, being God, knows who will be saved ? How could the above statement make any sense at all?

Only by coming to scripture with a preconceived concept could calvinism be understood; otherwise it's impossible to believe God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation.
 
OzSpen said:
JLB,

The exegesis of 2 Tim 2:15 involves this drawing out (ek) from Scripture:

Give diligence (spoudason). First aorist active imperative of spoudazw, old word, as in 1 Thessalonians 2:17 ; Galatians 2:10 . To present (parasthsai). First aorist active infinitive of paristhmi as in Colossians 1:22 Colossians 1:28 . Approved unto God (dokimon twi qewi). Dative case qewi with dokimon, predicate accusative, old adjective (from decomai), for which see 1 Corinthians 11:19 ; 2 Corinthians 10:18 . A workman (ergathn). See 2 Corinthians 11:3 ; Philippians 3:2 . That needeth not to be ashamed (anepaiscunton). Late double compound verbal adjective (a privative, epaiscunw), in Josephus and here alone. Handling aright (orqotomounta). Present active participle of orqotomew, late and rare compound (orqotomo), cutting straight, orqo and temnw), here only in N.T. It occurs in Proverbs 3:6 ; Proverbs 11:5 for making straight paths (odou) with which compare Hebrews 12:13 and "the Way" in Acts 9:2 . Theodoret explains it to mean ploughing a straight furrow. Parry argues that the metaphor is the stone mason cutting the stones straight since temnw and orqo are so used. Since Paul was a tent-maker and knew how to cut straight the rough camel-hair cloth, why not let that be the metaphor? Certainly plenty of exegesis is crooked enough (crazy-quilt patterns) to call for careful cutting to set it straight (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 2 Tim 2:15).​

Robertson was one of the finest NT Greek scholars of the 20th century. He shows that 'handling aright' means cutting straight, ploughing a straight furrow, cutting straight the rough camel-hair cloth of Paul the tent-maker. Using that metaphor. Robertson applied this to 'crooked' exegesis that needs to be carefully cut straight (to agree with Scripture).

Robertson has done the hard work of a Greek exegete that simply quoting the Scripture will not do.

Seems like you and I are on different pages in theological discussion.

Oz
Click to expand...

Yes I agree we are on different pages of Theological discussion.

You seem to like Parry and Robertson and all those scholars you admire.

I don’t need them to tell me how to read black and white.

Preach the word is clear.

Rightly Divide is clear.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.... is clear.


The doctrine of Christ isn’t built upon man’s commentary.

That’s why they are so many divisions in the body of Christ. People following the teachings of man.



JLB
 
JLB said:
Yes I agree we are on different pages of Theological discussion.

You seem to like Parry and Robertson and all those scholars you admire.

I don’t need them to tell me how to read black and white.

Preach the word is clear.

Rightly Divide is clear.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.... is clear.


The doctrine of Christ isn’t built upon man’s commentary.

That’s why they are so many divisions in the body of Christ. People following the teachings of man.



JLB
Click to expand...

Who is Parry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top