Arminian Minute: Response to John Piper & "Emotional Possibilities"

[tvires1978]

What I find interesting is that some people try and use dispensationalism to remove the significance of Romans 9. God's sovereign will is evident throughout scripture, Paul's letter to the Romans just removes all ambiguity. This is why it's referred to so much. In the same way, if one wants to argue that Jesus doesn't accept all who come we lead them to John 3:16. It's not as if it is the only place where this is found, it just makes a clear statement. I speak in love, brother. God bless u

[squashedgecko]

What I find interesting is how calvinists treat Romans 9 like it is the bible and therefore has the highest authority. Jesus Himself said concerning the goats on the day of judgment, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41) If hell was designed for the predestined, as I assume it would have to be in order for the idea of calvinistic predestination to make sense, why would he say hell was prepared for satan not humans?

[lowbattery34]

The sovereign will of God is straight forward in scripture.

[tvires1978]

Have you even read Romans 9?

Paul leaves no room for interpretation. He answers every objection that arminians could ever think to raise.

[squashedgecko]

@tvires1978 Why is it that Romans 9 is the bible? Ezekiel 18:32 "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" Ephesians 1:11 "In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will..." If God works out everything in accordance with what pleases Him, why do you suppose He predestines some to death although it is not His pleasure?

[tvires1978]

@squashedgecko To restate: Paul answers every objection. "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," Romans 9:20-22

Who are you, oh man?

[tvires1978]

Have you even read Romans 9?

[Wunji1]

Further, no early church Father held such views. It wasn't until that Neoplatonist Augustine that God's sovereignty somehow needed a catharsis. His obvious struggle with Manichaeism has given us the damnable heresy of predestination (the opposite of the common understanding of scripture, so please save the quotes on Ephesians, Romans, and the like). So, the Calvinists are in great company with the Gnostics!!

[Wunji1]

Why then would Paul, knowing that there wasn't anything he could do to save those who were not elect, grieve to the point of being desirous of yielding his salvation for his "brethren in the flesh?" This point is that while there is breath, be fast, pray, and plead for God to save (either physically, or spiritually). If we are to understand that God will not save some, why grieve? This would then be a sin, for you are grieving for something against what God has determined.

[Wunji1]

It is actually a very reasonable argument. Consider the account of King David over the death of his child. You can read about it in 2 Samuel 12. David wept for the life of the child hoping that God would save the child. However, when the child died, he stopped fasting, got up and ate to the the bewilderment of his servants. Paul, knowing this story could have responded the same way regarding those he loved. Perhaps you would say David didn't love his child? 

[pacouli]

What kind of argument is that... I mean come on...

Why grief?? Maybe because Paul loved his brothers? I really don't see why it would be inconsistent with unconditionnal election

[EverydayRevival]

@pacouli It isn't inconsistent with grief for his countrymen at all. These people like to make up their own definitions and play "what if" type games with the scripture to try and justify their undermining of Biblical doctrine.

[EverydayRevival]

Paul grieved because he was human and regardless of the reason; to know that those who don't believe are going to go to into eternal destruction, especially when we have been extended Grace is sad.

Unless we believe that we are somehow better (because we "chose" to believe) than those who don't how can you not grieve over the lost. Whether they continue in sin because they're reprobate or because they never saw a Billy Graham special... they're still going to Hell, and it's still sad.

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival "Paul grieved because he was human"... So then king David was not human because he did not grieve the death of his child? Why is it sad that they who do not believe are going to hell? Is the sadness you feel for these people predestined or are you free to feel sadness? Are those who are sad because you are sad free to be sad for you? Was the lack of grief from king David predestined just as the grief displayed by Paul? Then God is inconsistent in predestining grief?

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 When child was dying David grieved, the Bible says he fasted and prayed the whole time and slept on the ground, refusing to eat or drink anything because he didn't know whether the LORD would be gracious to him and the child would live, but when the child died he knew without a doubt that it was the will of God and he knew that fasting and weeping wouldn't bring the child back.

Paul loved his countrymen, he wanted them to know God's grace through repentance and believing the gospel.

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival Thanks for stating what the scripture says regarding David - lol. You are actually making my point. David knew it was the will of God. So, if Paul knew that they would not be saved because had not predestined their belief, why grieve? My point exactly...

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 My Point is that your point is no point at all... Paul never said (neither do any other good Calvinists) that none of Israel would be saved or that God has turned His back on the whole nation of Israel... his grief is for those that might be saved, and not for those that have heard and rejected the Gospel already. Paul didn't know (like us today still don't know) who the Elect are, and that's why we contend for the Gospel everywhere and preach it to every creature to see men saved.

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival So easy to lead you right where we need to go. The text doesn't say anything of the sort. This is another case of a Calvinist interpolation. Paul did not say "I would wish my self accursed for the sake of those predestined to believe." Though you have, like "all good Calvinists", read into the text, the context is the entire people of Israel. Romans 9:1-5 - In fact I will post it so that all can read and see the fallacy of what you just stated...

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival 1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh...

The context is the ENTIRE race of Israelites. Not a few chosen.

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 The context isn't the ENTIRE race of Israelites

Rom 9:6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For NOT ALL who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and NOT ALL are children of Abraham because they are his offspring "Through Isaac shall you offspring be named." This MEANS THAT IT IS NOT the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God Rom 8:14

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival lol - that makes a lot of sense. Paul had unceasing anguish over those who were already elect! That's great logic. Keep up the good work little guy....

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 That's not at all what I'm saying and I think that should stand as proof that you're interested only in playing word games.

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival I'm not playing word games at all. It's called context! Either Paul had unceasing anguish for the elect in which case he desired to forfeit his salvation for no reason, or he has unceasing grief for his fellow kinsmen - the Israelites. Which is it?

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 Paul has anguish for his countrymen the Israelites, that wasn't the point... you've changed the context of what we were talking about while we were talking about it... Paul is anguished over every Israelite that doesn't repent and believe the Gospel... there's an example of this in Rom 9:20-22. Even if Paul knew who were and were not going to be saved he would still not like seeing his countrymen going into perdition.

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival Then you just contradicted yourself because you said the context was not the entire race of Israelites. This is the problem with Calvinism. It strains the plain meaning of the word of God. I didn't change the context at all. From the beginning it has always been about the contrast of Paul's anguish with king David's lack there of. I was merely bringing more definition to the point with Paul...

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 The grief that Paul had for his impenitent countrymen, has absolutely nothing to do with the grief that King David DID have for his lost child... That's the problem, you people draw false conclusions and inferences from completely unrelated texts and then try to use that flawed foundation to tear apart other texts.

Romans 9 IS talking about the elective decree of God toward individuals, to the praise of His glorious Grace. Paul's grief or David's doesn't change the fact that it does.

[Wunji1]

@EverydayRevival Ok, so now Paul does have grief for his countrymen or is it still the elect? I just want to know which one you are aligning with. What Paul should have said was - "I have unceasing anguish for the elect, and so much so that I would wish myself accursed so that they may be saved, even though being elect they will be anyway, and so I would be forfeiting my salvation for no reason..." or, was it just as he said it in scripture, that he had in mind the Israelites? Pls be clear..

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 You're not making any sense here... I never said, nor has anyone said that Paul had unceasing anguish for the elect only... He had unceasing anguish over (all of) his countrymen (already said this multiple times).

Paul's thought here is about why those who had always been God's People in an external physical sense, weren't believing the truth of the Gospel. Jesus wept over Jerusalem knowing full well what each and everyone of them would do too.

[EverydayRevival]

@Wunji1 I see now (after rereading our correspondence so far). I thought that you were making a point about the rest of Romans 9 having to do with the whole nation of Israel (which it doesn't) and not the salvation of individuals (as it does).

So just to re-state- Paul's sorrow and unceasing anguish was for the entire race of the Israelites, but from Romans 9:6 on, Paul himself begins speaking specifically about the elect/children of the promise.

My bad... I think I missed the initial point.

[apollos6640]

Rom. 9:23 is proof enough that Unconditional Election is Unbiblical.

[EverydayRevival]

@apollos6640 You're just being unreasonable, because Romans 9:23 proves Unconditional Election. It surely doesn't disprove election since it's talking about the purpose of vessels of destruction is to make know the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which he has prepared beforehand for glory.

Was that a typo?

I mean if you're going to try to disprove a biblical, god-honoring doctrine like election than you shouldn't choose such a verse that clearly defends God's Election.

[apollos6640]

@EverydayRevival yes, it was a Typo. I find that kind of funny. I had Rom 9:23 in my head, but I meant Rom. 11:23 "...And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

How can they be "grafted in AGAIN" "IF THEY do not continue in their unbelief" if they were PREDESTINED for the Lake of Fire?

[ronathanedwards]

Who has written a book "dismantling" his book? I'm not talking about some glib 20 paragraph article or a paper, but a book. In order to refute his book and "dismantle" his argument, it would at least take a book to do it. I haven't seen one yet directly addressing specifically PIper's arguments.

[ronathanedwards]

Typical Arminian thought. Base everything on inference and build an argument on an incorrect assumption. Maybe Paul.. I don't know... LOVED his countrymen and (although knowing God's plan for many of them) still could have strong feelings for them. This isn't inconsistent at all. The fact is, your basis is all assumption and bad hermeneutics.

You want to take on PIper!! LOL

NO ONE has even DARED to tackle his Book on this subject. "The Justification of God".... LOL

[ThePristineFaith]

@ronathanedwards While I admire Piper in a lot of areas, I often find his exegesis of Calvinist "proof texts" strained. I do not consider his arguments formidable in the least bit, and contrary to your claims, there have been others who have sufficiently dismantled his "superior" arguments.

[EverydayRevival]

@ThePristineFaith I like how arminians claim that Calvinist proof text, and then they find the one verse in the whole Bible that says "... not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" It's one verse (and it's not even the whole verse, they never quote the whole verse because they know that Peter is talking to the Church in 2Pet3:9) in the Whole counsel of God that determines everything you guys rail on about.

[patrckhh20]

@ronathanedwards Its all arminians can do man. "You believe in election so you can't love anyone!!!" What a joke.