Arminians' Dilemma

[Clete]

Nang is a liar.

She blames her god for everything that happens. She believes and WILL NOT deny that God predestined every event that has or will ever take place before any event ever happened and that none of those events can be avoided in any way or by any means because they are the predetermined will of her god.

According to Nag, people who are saved are not elect because they believe but the other way around, they believe because they were elected before the creation ever took place. People, likewise, are not despised by her god because they sin and refuse to repent but the other way around!

It makes no difference what sort of act you're discussing, whether helping an elderly lady cross the street or raping an 6 year old boy. They all happen as a result of Nag's god's decree, not because anyone chose to do so. Their "choice", to whatever convoluted degree she concedes such a choice exists, its only another event in the string of predestined events that her god predetermined would happen before time began.

 

[Nang]

The supposedly learned and wise one, (pneumonia or whatever his forum name is, to borrow from Clete), could not even distinguish the difference of my view from Karl Barth's. He couldn't believe how a child could have hit the proverbial nail on its head with what he presents in this forum. Here's what he says: For me, universal atonement does not mean every one will ultimately make it to heaven, just because Christ died for everyone in Adam's race and made each one part of His Body on the cross. As I have repeatedly posted in a number of different threads, only overcomers will finally make it to the heavenly portals. And the learned and wise one cannot present any single valid Biblical basis for whatever objection he may have against my position.

What you are really saying, is men will get to heaven according to their works, rather than according to the cross work of Jesus Christ. You suggest that His sacrifice is contingent upon human acceptance & action.

I disagree.

Men are saved and guaranteed everlasting life solely according to the justifying efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; His mercy and grace that imputes His righteousness to whom He wills; and His power to raise up sinners from darkness and death.

All to the glory of God, alone.

 

[Nang]

Nang is a liar.

She blames her god for everything that happens. She believes and WILL NOT deny that God predestined every event that has or will ever take place before any event ever happened and that none of those events can be avoided in any way or by any means because they are the predetermined will of her god.

According to Nag, people who are saved are not elect because the believe but the other way around, they believe because they were elected before the creation ever took place. People, likewise, are not despised by her god because they sin and refuse to repent but the other way around!

It makes no difference what sort of act you're discussing, whether helping an elderly lady cross the street or raping an 6 year old boy. They all happen as a result of Nag's god's decree, not because anyone chose to do so. Their "choice", to whatever convoluted degree she concedes such a choice exists, its only another event in the string of predestined events that her god predetermined would happen before time began.

Bah . . .

 

[patrick jane]

What you are really saying, is men will get to heaven according to their works, rather than according to the cross work of Jesus Christ. You suggest that His sacrifice is contingent upon human acceptance & action.

I disagree.

Men are saved and guaranteed everlasting life solely according to the justifying efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; His mercy and grace that imputes His righteousness to whom He wills; and His power to raise up sinners from darkness and death.

All to the glory of God, alone.

Hearing and believing is not works

 

[Nang]

Hearing and believing is not works

Agreed.

Christians are justified by faith alone, not by works of any kind.

Faith is a gift from God, who gives us ears to hear and new hearts with which to believe; without which sinners cannot and do not respond to the gospel message.

If a man is not born again from above (regenerated by the Holy Spirit), he will remain spiritually dead in his sins.

Samie is teaching the cross work of Jesus Christ has made it only possible for all men to believe the gospel on his own, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is considered a reward for exerting an inner faith (which no sinner possesses!) Man must respond and act, for the cross work of Jesus Christ to be effectual. No!

Regeneration does not follow belief, but faith comes as a gift when a soul is regenerated, changed, and enabled to believe the gospel.

Regeneration always precedes saving faith. It is the resurrection power and gift of the Holy Spirit that works faith in those for whom Christ died.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The supposedly learned and wise one, (pneumonia or whatever his forum name is, to borrow from Clete), could not even distinguish the difference of my view from Karl Barth's. He couldn't believe how a child could have hit the proverbial nail on its head with what he presents in this forum. Here's what he says: For me, universal atonement does not mean every one will ultimately make it to heaven, just because Christ died for everyone in Adam's race and made each one part of His Body on the cross. As I have repeatedly posted in a number of different threads, only overcomers will finally make it to the heavenly portals. And the learned and wise one cannot present any single valid Biblical basis for whatever objection he may have against my position.

Just like Karl Barth, who is a proponent of Universal Atonement not Universal Salvation.

Since you know nothing of him, it's hilarious how you pretend you do.

You're one of the vast majority who have no idea how articular and anarthrous Greek nouns affect English understanding of translation. And you don't want to know. All you want is your own autonomous arrogance of presupposition.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hearing and believing is not works

That's because hearing and faith (Romans 10:17) are both NOUNS, not verbs.

You have no idea how fundamentally wrong you are, because you have no idea how much your English dysfunction has impaired your ability to even know your own language (much less the one that content was translated FROM).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Nang is a liar.

She blames her god for everything that happens. She believes and WILL NOT deny that God predestined every event that has or will ever take place before any event ever happened and that none of those events can be avoided in any way or by any means because they are the predetermined will of her god.

According to Nag, people who are saved are not elect because the believe but the other way around, they believe because they were elected before the creation ever took place. People, likewise, are not despised by her god because they sin and refuse to repent but the other way around!

It makes no difference what sort of act you're discussing, whether helping an elderly lady cross the street or raping an 6 year old boy. They all happen as a result of Nag's god's decree, not because anyone chose to do so. Their "choice", to whatever convoluted degree she concedes such a choice exists, its only another event in the string of predestined events that her god predetermined would happen before time began.

You don't understand Reformed doctrine in any of its forms or degrees.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What an arrogant a$$.

No, that would be you and your peers.

 

[Epoisses]

That's because hearing and faith (Romans 10:17) are both NOUNS, not verbs.

You have no idea how fundamentally wrong you are, because you have no idea how much your English dysfunction has impaired your ability to even know your own language (much less the one that content was translated FROM).

According to this poser no one can be saved by reading their bible anymore. They need the super-duper Greek scholar to show them the exact perfect meaning of every word. Hey, numbskull is believe in Acts 16:31 a noun or a verb? I think it's a verb you side-show huckster with your snake oil religion. Faith is presented as a command and a gift in the scriptures. To focus on the command leads to will worship and a legal religion. To focus only on the gift leads to hyper-grace where any mention of personal responsibility is seen as 'works' religion. Jesus focused quite a bit on works - was he wrong? James focused on works - was he wrong? Even Paul's epistles were written under the backdrop of extreme Jewish legalism so of course he is going to focus on grace and the free gift but he never took it to the extremes of Calvinist hyper-gracers who turn faith into a work. Go back to the seminary and instead of having a pissing contest you can see who has the biggest vocabulary, LOL.

 

[Samie]

What you are really saying, is men will get to heaven according to their works, rather than according to the cross work of Jesus Christ. You suggest that His sacrifice is contingent upon human acceptance & action.

I disagree.

Disagree with what? You have nothing to disagree with me because what you wrote is not my position. It's God's work through Christ why people are In Christ. People are born in Christ. Where's human work there? Who told you I said "His sacrifice is contingent upon human acceptance & action."? Where did I post that? Do you think I'm an Arminian? Neither am I a Calvinist.

Men are saved and guaranteed everlasting life solely according to the justifying efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; His mercy and grace that imputes His righteousness to whom He wills; and His power to raise up sinners from darkness and death.

All to the glory of God, alone.

Do you know that there are 3 tenses of salvation in Scriptures? If not yet, then ask pneumonia or whatever his name is. Maybe he knows; he is the wise and learned one. If he does not, then perhaps he got so preoccupied with his anarthrous inventions, he did not have time to study the Bible any more.

In the past & present tenses, all benefited and are benefiting. But in the future tense, only overcomers of evil with good will positively benefit. Again, overcoming is not salvation by works. People are already in the saved condition when they are in Christ. We don't overcome to be In Christ because people are born already in Christ, and therefore heaven-bound, UNLESS our names are blotted out from the book of life. And Christ Himself assures us that overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).

We don't get to heaven because of our works; it's because we are In Christ. But we will be rewarded according to our works. Jesus said so EXPLICITLY. Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12.

 

[Clete]

You don't understand Reformed doctrine in any of its forms or degrees.

You're wrong! I understand them perfectly. I understand their origin and the "logic" that leads to each and every conclusion in the whole convoluted irrational mass of insanity that is Calvinism/Reformed Augustinianism.

It all boils down to one single thing. Calvinism begins at Divine Immutability. Everything else (well, almost everything) is a corollary of that single pagan doctrine, which is altogether foreign to the bible, no matter how many pre-texts they care to quote. That link is to an article written by John MacArthur saying the same things Nang believes only in words that you'll like to hear. I suppose you think he doesn't understand Reformed doctrine either.

If you understand Calvinism and believe/teach it anyway (most Calvinists don't), you are not a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. You worship a god that is unjust, unloving, unkind, impersonal, unthinking and non-existent. Repent or will die in your idolatry.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You're wrong! I understand them perfectly. I understand their origin and the "logic" that leads to each and every conclusion in the whole convoluted irrational mass of insanity that is Calvinism/Reformed Augustinianism.

It all boils down to one single thing. Calvinism begins at Divine Immutability. Everything else (well, almost everything) is a corollary of that single pagan doctrine, which is altogether foreign to the bible, no matter how many pre-texts they care to quote. That link is to an article written by John MacArthur saying the same things Nang believes only in words that you'll like to hear. I suppose you think he doesn't understand Reformed doctrine either.

If you understand Calvinism and believe/teach it anyway (most Calvinists don't), you are not a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. You worship a god that is unjust, unloving, unkind, impersonal, unthinking and non-existent. Repent or will die in your idolatry.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I don't teach Calvinism, but you don't understand it even though you are sure that you do. If you did, you would be able to unveil the exact manner in which it projects time-based activity in creation upon a timeless and uncreated God, and demeans His sovereignty in a way that belies its own premises.

As for JohnMac, don't get me started. He's a very confused hybridizer of many things.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

According to this poser no one can be saved by reading their bible anymore. They need the super-duper Greek scholar to show them the exact perfect meaning of every word. Hey, numbskull is believe in Acts 16:31 a noun or a verb? I think it's a verb you side-show huckster with your snake oil religion. Faith is presented as a command and a gift in the scriptures. To focus on the command leads to will worship and a legal religion. To focus only on the gift leads to hyper-grace where any mention of personal responsibility is seen as 'works' religion. Jesus focused quite a bit on works - was he wrong? James focused on works - was he wrong? Even Paul's epistles were written under the backdrop of extreme Jewish legalism so of course he is going to focus on grace and the free gift but he never took it to the extremes of Calvinist hyper-gracers who turn faith into a work. Go back to the seminary and instead of having a pissing contest you can see who has the biggest vocabulary, LOL.

First of all, there's no such thing as "hyper-grace"; and I'd be the last on this earth to advocate such a thing. It is OF faith that it might be BY grace. We have access BY faith INTO the grace in which we stand. There is no grace without faith, so there is no such thing as "hyper-grace".

There is ONE grammatical construct that differs extremely between Greek and English. That would be noun forms. Your very foundation for the internal processes of thinking and reasoning (Epistemology) are skewed by your native first language; and that's true by literal cognitive development from the womb through every stage of human growth.

We're to not be ignorant of Satan's devices (noema - concepts of the mind). It's language-influenced patterns of epistemological function that are the means of him installing his concepts through one's linguistic foundation for thought and volition. The will is the application of the mind, therefore someone who is renewed in the spirit of their mind will be able to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Your cognitive dissonance is a cruel master, as evidenced by your vulgar words like resorting to a$$ and pissing, etc.

Love abounds in knowledge (epignosis). Many despise that truth, and attempt to quote or apply 1Cor. 8:1 that "knowledge puffs up". But that is gnosis, not epignosis; and it's a specific context for a specific directive in that passage. Even gnosis is not referred to negatively in the rest of scripture, in fact being the reference to us "knowing" God.

Your venomous vitriolic condescension is sad. You presume yourself superior to those who have devoted their lives to the inspired text, presupposing your own autonomous perceptions to be the outright authority and truth of scripture.

In actuality, you've never been renewed in the spirit of your mind to know the subtle meanings that you have replaced with something else because of your English-patterned heart and mind. Like most, you're an authority unto yourself, and despise anyone who knows anything besides your presumed deductions by your own faulty intellect; so you project that onto others when they dare speak the truth. THE truth. There's only one. Aletheia (truth) has an almost ridiculously concise meaning, and you don't know it.

English is an incredible low-context tool to express the Gospel, so it's not about English being "bad". It's about English thinkers/speakers presuming they know what the Greek language explicitly says beyond generalities.

God is not bound by languages or their translations, but man can be and is. If someone doesn't know the difference between Greek articular/anarthrous nouns and English definite/indefinite article nouns, and the effect this has on understanding the text; then the danger is always a woefully incomplete comprehension AND the replacement of truth with some degree of untruth.

I'm not the poser. You have no idea what many basic and foundational things mean. That's not my fault, so don't blame me or seminaries for your own indoctrination and programming.

You're the one trapped in legalism, and you don't even know you're a law unto yourself (because you don't know what "law" even means). Sad.

 

[Epoisses]

In others words - yes Epoisses, belief is a verb in Acts 16:31. I refuse to acknowledge anything that goes against my hyper-grace understanding where all human works are eliminated from the equation. I'm a poser who claims to worship Christ but in reality I worship my intellect. There is no such thing as human responsibility for God does all even creating poor lost souls to live lives of futility and be damned eternally. Don't forget, God is Love as long as you win the cosmic lottery.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

In others words - yes Epoisses, belief is a verb in Acts 16:31. I refuse to acknowledge anything that goes against my hyper-grace understanding where all human works are eliminated from the equation. I'm a poser who claims to worship Christ but in reality I worship my intellect. There is no such thing as human responsibility for God does all even creating poor lost souls to live lives of futility and be damned eternally. Don't forget, God is Love as long as you win the cosmic lottery.

LOL. Sigh...

No, it's not those of us who have love abounding knowledge who are worshipping our intellects; it's you and the many others like you who are doing so in your feigned love, and your nominal hope masquerading as faith in your ignorance and arrogance.

Not one thing you've said has anything to do with rightly representing some or all that I've said; so... In other words... No, Epoisses, you have no idea how the verb and noun are related OR what they mean.

And, once again for your abject stubbornness, there is no such thing as hyper-grace. You have to caricature everything according to your very limited mental grid of your own intellect, and worship that as the boundaries for all understanding because they're your boundaries.

You're just another of the majority multitude of Modernists who rely on your own false autonomy to be a pope to yourself. You're both a Judaizer and a Roman in functionality.

You're only a shade different that all the progressive Millennials, whining about triggering and all the rest in their overwhelming entitlement.

 

[Clete]

I don't teach Calvinism, but you don't understand it even though you are sure that you do. If you did, you would be able to unveil the exact manner in which it projects time-based activity in creation upon a timeless and uncreated God, and demeans His sovereignty in a way that belies its own premises.

This is the sort of nonsense that Calvinists/Augustinians consider reason. You state that I can't possibly understand Calvinism because I can't explain something that only needs explaining IF Calvinism is true!

I don't need to explain or to even understand the manner in which Calvinism projects time-based activity upon a timeless god. All I need to understand is that it attempts to do so! The whole notion is both unbiblical and entirely irrational! The truth of the proposition can be rejected on either basis. I reject it on both.

As for JohnMac, don't get me started. He's a very confused hybridizer of many things.

That article very clearly articulates the Calvinist understanding of predestination and sovereignty based on the premise of their god's immutability. None of which, once again, regardless of the pretexts the author cites, is in any way biblical or even rational.

Incidentally, by 'pretext' I mean a proof-text that only seems to suggest what the user intends when the doctrine is brought to the text a-priori, which, it would seem, is the only way a Calvinist knows how to use the bible. They bring their beliefs, fully intact, to the reading of scripture and therefore see their doctrine everywhere and then use what they see to argue for the belief they brought to the reading. Calvinism, in this regard, is no more valid than the con artists on "Christian" television who sell miracles to old women. Every toaster that didn't burn the bread is seen as a miracle to them just as every passages of the bible that talks about God predicting the future as proof of predestination. Real theology goes in the other direction. I've even come across Calvinists who understand the direction in which their logic is going and insist that it is the correct direction and that any other direction will be false because their doctrine must be presupposed in order for any logic to work in the first place. No telling what line of logic they used to reach that conclusion or which direction it went in but, hey, if you're going to be irrational, why bother making any sense?

One last thing. I've been debating Calvinism and its corollaries for decades. You're not the first person who wanted to pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about. I can assure you that I very much do know what I'm talking about. There is nothing, and I do mean precisely that - nothing - that you can tell me or argument that you can make in defense of Reformed Idolatry that I haven't seen, read or heard dozens of times. Calvinism is irrational stupidity from tip to toe and I've proven it over and over and over again. At the end all you will do, if you're 10X more intellectually honest than the vast majority of Calvinists, is to admit that you cannot reconcile your doctrine with justice, love, kindness and any other aspect of righteousness apart from rendering those terms meaningless when applied to the god you worship. All you've got is to admit that your god is somehow both arbitrary and righteous and that you can't figure out how that works. In effect, you (i.e. all Calvinists) choose immutability over righteousness because its not immutability that you render meaningless, its righteousness.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is the sort of nonsense that Calvinists/Augustinians consider reason. You state that I can't possibly understand Calvinism because I can't explain something that only needs explaining IF Calvinism is true!

I don't need to explain or to even understand the manner in which Calvinism projects time-based activity upon a timeless god. All I need to understand is that it attempts to do so! The whole notion is both unbiblical and entirely irrational! The truth of the proposition can be rejected on either basis. I reject it on both.


That article very clearly articulates the Calvinist understanding of predestination and sovereignty based on the premise of their god's immutability. None of which, once again, regardless of the pretexts the author cites, is in any way biblical or even rational.

Incidentally, by 'pretext' I mean a proof-text that only seems to suggest what the user intends when the doctrine is brought to the text a-priori, which, it would seem, is the only way a Calvinist knows how to use the bible. They bring their beliefs, fully intact, to the reading of scripture and therefore see their doctrine everywhere and then use what they see to argue for the belief they brought to the reading. Calvinism, in this regard, is no more valid than the con artists on "Christian" television who sell miracles to old women. Every toaster that didn't burn the bread is seen as a miracle to them just as every passages of the bible that talks about God predicting the future as proof of predestination. Real theology goes in the other direction. I've even come across Calvinists who understand the direction in which their logic is going and insist that it is the correct direction and that any other direction will be false because their doctrine must be presupposed in order for any logic to work in the first place. No telling what line of logic they used to reach that conclusion or which direction it went in but, hey, if you're going to be irrational, why bother making any sense?

One last thing. I've been debating Calvinism and its corollaries for decades. You're not the first person who wanted to pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about. I can assure you that I very much do know what I'm talking about. There is nothing, and I do mean precisely that - nothing - that you can tell me or argument that you can make in defense of Reformed Idolatry that I haven't seen, read or heard dozens of times. Calvinism is irrational stupidity from tip to toe and I've proven it over and over and over again. At the end all you will do, if you're 10X more intellectually honest than the vast majority of Calvinists, is to admit that you cannot reconcile your doctrine with justice, love, kindness and any other aspect of righteousness apart from rendering those terms meaningless when applied to the god you worship. All you've got is to admit that your god is somehow both arbitrary and righteous and that you can't figure out how that works. In effect, you (i.e. all Calvinists) choose immutability over righteousness because its not immutability that you render meaningless, its righteousness.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Your immediate dilemna is that I'm not a Calvinist. (In your unfettered rage, you must have missed the part where I insisted Calvinism demeans the sovereignty of God that it espouses; and projects created time upon a timeless God.)

Your more over-arching dilemna, despite an alleged multi-decade foray into refuting Calvinism, is that you don't understand the depth, breadth, and height of the meanings of most key words you use and refer to; and that you don't understand the difference between Greek noun constructions and English noun constructions.

You actually share a good number of my own criticisms OF Calvinism; but you're so blinded by arrogance and a hate-agenda, you don't even realize I'm not advocating for what you insist. You're just on a tyrade, and presume I'm somehow included in your target practice. I'm not.

I reconciled the false dichotomy of Arminianism versus Calvinism long ago, without being either.

Neither God's Immutability nor God's Righteousness are mutually exclusive. A true Theodicy reveals exactly that; and I've met no one else who can reconcile it, so you're in a comfortable majority who are uninformed according to God's Word and Spirit.

If you're an apostate and heretical Open Theist, then there's not much need in us conversing. If you're just an anti-Calvinist, then there's some possibility of cordial convo (though you've demonstrated none so far on your own behalf).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is the sort of nonsense that Calvinists/Augustinians consider reason. You state that I can't possibly understand Calvinism because I can't explain something that only needs explaining IF Calvinism is true!

I don't need to explain or to even understand the manner in which Calvinism projects time-based activity upon a timeless god. All I need to understand is that it attempts to do so! The whole notion is both unbiblical and entirely irrational! The truth of the proposition can be rejected on either basis. I reject it on both.


That article very clearly articulates the Calvinist understanding of predestination and sovereignty based on the premise of their god's immutability. None of which, once again, regardless of the pretexts the author cites, is in any way biblical or even rational.

Incidentally, by 'pretext' I mean a proof-text that only seems to suggest what the user intends when the doctrine is brought to the text a-priori, which, it would seem, is the only way a Calvinist knows how to use the bible. They bring their beliefs, fully intact, to the reading of scripture and therefore see their doctrine everywhere and then use what they see to argue for the belief they brought to the reading. Calvinism, in this regard, is no more valid than the con artists on "Christian" television who sell miracles to old women. Every toaster that didn't burn the bread is seen as a miracle to them just as every passages of the bible that talks about God predicting the future as proof of predestination. Real theology goes in the other direction. I've even come across Calvinists who understand the direction in which their logic is going and insist that it is the correct direction and that any other direction will be false because their doctrine must be presupposed in order for any logic to work in the first place. No telling what line of logic they used to reach that conclusion or which direction it went in but, hey, if you're going to be irrational, why bother making any sense?

One last thing. I've been debating Calvinism and its corollaries for decades. You're not the first person who wanted to pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about. I can assure you that I very much do know what I'm talking about. There is nothing, and I do mean precisely that - nothing - that you can tell me or argument that you can make in defense of Reformed Idolatry that I haven't seen, read or heard dozens of times. Calvinism is irrational stupidity from tip to toe and I've proven it over and over and over again. At the end all you will do, if you're 10X more intellectually honest than the vast majority of Calvinists, is to admit that you cannot reconcile your doctrine with justice, love, kindness and any other aspect of righteousness apart from rendering those terms meaningless when applied to the god you worship. All you've got is to admit that your god is somehow both arbitrary and righteous and that you can't figure out how that works. In effect, you (i.e. all Calvinists) choose immutability over righteousness because its not immutability that you render meaningless, its righteousness.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Are you an Open Theist?

 

[Nang]

I insisted Calvinism demeans the sovereignty of God that it espouses; and projects created time upon a timeless God.)

How so?

Neither God's Immutability nor God's Righteousness are mutually exclusive.

Agreed. God's immutability is righteous, and God's righteousness is immutable.