Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61241 | ||
YOUR PREMISE is faulty though. You state: However, it is also possible that God being sovereign and all powerful could have created beings (humans) that were actually capable of either desiring a relationship with God or not desiring it. Their nature could be partially corrupted so that they have a tendancy to choose to reject God, but still have the ability to overcome that first instinct. Then some of them would choose to love God and would deserve heaven (only by God’s grace of providing a way to salvation through Jesus). But others would choose to reject God and His salvation and would deserve Hell. Thus everyone gets what they deserve (in a greater sense). ---- We will just look at one of your phrases as the other revolve around them: Where does it say “that God being sovereign and all powerful could have created beings (humans) that were actually capable of either desiring a relationship with God or not desiring it.” Even you said could have, where is this in Scripture? What ability, capability, or desires does a dead man have? (Eph 2:1)--NONE. He is spiritual dead in trespasses and sin. The Scripture is clear “no man seeketh after God,” how many “no not one” (Rom 3:10-11). So even if you assertion is correct and one has ability, capability, or desire (which of course is not the case—John 1:13), they still would not seek after God and thus your case folds because the Scripture does not support your assumption. To assert otherwise would be to say there is some degree of righteousness in every man (something that was not corrupted), but “they are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom 3:12). The quoted example (in the beginning of the post) is very clear and it does address (1) the truth of Scripture, (2) yes, it is the Calvinistic belief against Arminianism, which is not supported with proper Scriptural exegesis. Now, let me ask you a question: 1. Did Christ die for all sins of all men? 2. Did Christ die for some sins of all men? 3. Did Christ die for all sins of some men? If Christ dies for (1) "all sins of all men" then why are any lost? After-all is not "unbelief" a sin? And if He died for the sin of "unbelief" how could any be lost--but some are aren't they! If Christ died for (2) "some sins of all men" then we do not have an atonement for "all sin" without exception and all are still in sin! Thus, Christ died for (3) "all sins of some men" --His elect that some according to His purpose and plan may be saved (Eph 1, Rom 8-11). |
||||||
2 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | Sir Pent | 61259 | ||
You Did Not Answer The Question ................................... Dear JRdoc, I realize that you believe the second premise to be wrong. The second option is the way that the universe is perceived by an Arminian, which you are not. I am not asking you to believe that it is correct. Please don’t just keep on throwing out Bible verses that you think prove that position wrong. I am fully aware that there are many verses that would seem to support the Calvinist perspective while refuting the Arminian perspective. I know where you are coming from on that front. ................................... Now try to see where I am coming from. There are also a lot of scriptures that support the Arminian perspective while refuting the Calvinist one. I am not going to throw them out here becuase that has been done ad nausium here on the forum. Besides which, I am not at this time trying to convince anyone to believe either perspective. ................................... I am strictly interested in determining, if ASSUMING either perspective was correct, would it be possible for God to be sovereign. ................................... P.S. This doesn’t relate to the question we are discussing, but since you asked, I find (1) to be the most accurate statement in your question, but please don’t go trying to prove me wrong. Let’s stay on the sovereign topic :) |
||||||
3 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61266 | ||
If man is sovereign in his choice than God is not God. Arminianism re-defines terms such as foreknowledge, election, calling, grace etc to be just mere speculations of God's desire and make salvation a work of man vs. the sole work of God. I do not assert that man does not have a will, but it is not the free-will the Arminian thinks..there is no Scriptural support for it. If I cannot use Scripture than I do not see where a conversation about this would be valuable as all truth is from THE text alone. I do not discuss the WHAT IF's of philosophy when the I AM of Scripture has already spoken to the point. I see no verses when correctly interpreted and in context that fit the Arminian scheme of Scripture. Since you believe that Christ died for ALL SIN for ALL MEN then you must be a universalist for ALL would need to be saved. UNBELIEF is a sin, and you say Christ died for it for everyone without exception. Yet the Scripture affirms that many are lost. Thus, Scripture does not back that view. |
||||||
4 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | Sir Pent | 61272 | ||
Perhaps we're at an impass.............................. Dear JRdoc, I am dissapointed that you feel like we can’t continue our discussion. I am not asking you to stop using scripture, in fact, I encourage you to do so. I am only asking that you don’t use scripture to attack the assumption (Arminian perspective) because that has been done already elsewhere on the forum (and is currently happening as well, I might add). I would ask you to supply some scripture that would indicates that BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION BEING TRUE, would negate the sovereignity of God. If you are unable to put yourself in the other persons shoes, then this may be impossible for you. However, I have tried to state the Calvinist position from their perspective in a fair way, and would ask you to at least try to answer the question from a point of understanding (although not agreeing of course) the Arminian perspective. If you can’t do this then I would encourage you to at least read the thread that I am discussing this with John Reformer. We seem to be understanding each other better and perhaps you might learn something from reading that thread. ............................................................ P.S. I am not a universalist. I disagree with that perspective. |
||||||
5 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | JRdoc | 61274 | ||
But, if the assumption is false (as it is) there is NO Scripture to support it. Yes, every verse when in context proves that God is sovereign in the Calvinistic viewpoint of the Scripture, show me one that is not? Why argue something that cannot be supported or is just a mere assumption. You are arguing WHAT IF's that DO NOT exist? What you are proposing mounts to a straw-man which is of not value...we then would be reducing the Scripture to "a" philosophy...this I am not willing to do. If you will state a Scripture I will either state the truth ot link you to a site that displays it (some explainations are too long to post here), but away from the Scripture I do not embark...that is a dark, dark road. |
||||||