4 SPIRITUAL FLAWS? Is the Arminian gospel really good news?

[thekenny1175]

I preach sin, righteousness, judgement, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ.

[Blogrich55]

@thekenny1175 I am not sure how this comment relates to the video. Are you an Arminian? I might add that the Mormons also teach the things you mention. God bless.

[thekenny1175]

@Blogrich55 The Mormons believe God has sex with his wives to create spiritual children like you, me, and Jesus and Satan, our spiritual brothers. It is not intellectually honest to compare me to a Mormon, as Mormonism is a Satanic Cult. I am not an Arminian. I believe 1 John 2:2, and Mark 16:15, and every other word of the Bible. Am I going to Go to Hell because I believe that one must repent and trust Jesus to be saved?

[Blogrich55]

@thekenny1175 "It is not intellectually honest to compare me to a Mormon..."

First of all NO ONE compared you to a Mormon so simmer down! I pointed out that the cults all lay claim to believing what you did. Their definitions is WHAT makes them a cult (you have rightly pointed to a few of the LDS errors). And you STILL have not defined what YOU mean. I assume you are an Arminian or you would NOT have made a comment in the first place. BTW Arminians NEVER want to own up to being Arminians. GBU

[Blogrich55]

@thekenny1175 "Am I going to Go to Hell because I believe that one must repent and trust Jesus to be saved?"

Did anyone EVER say you or Arminians in general were? Some mistakenly believe just because they believe in eternal security they are not Arminians. Many Arminians believe in eternal security. Do you believe in absolute predestination of ALL things by a sovereign but loving God? Did God elect who would be saved and send Jesus to atone for THEM alone? These are Calvinistic distinctives.

[Strefanasha]

people seem to think that arminian and pelagian are synonymous. they are not.

but, debate aside, we are all pelagian, even the most rigid calvinist, if we are busy trying hard to make the act of will to either be saved or to show we are of the elect, so all this talk boils down to nothing

[Blogrich55]

@Strefanasha "people seem to think..." I have NEVER said Arminianism and Pelagianism are synonyms. Arminianism is SEMI-Pelagianism. There are those (like Jerry Falwell) who were SEMI-SEMI-Pelagian. All of these theological definitions narrow down their positions. You can NOT lump them altogether with some irrational statement like "we are all pelagian.." which you FAIL to prove. Working OUT your salvation is NOT the same thing as working FOR you salvation. Pelagians deny Original Sin.

[Blogrich55]

@thomasborboa1358 "i wonder if Calvinist realize that not all of them ARE SAVED"

D'ya THINK??

[TheOkstate2012]

LOL, how are my accusation non squitur when you yourself said, 'all' Arminian heretics like yourself don't really care about the Truth or what the Scripture teaches"

how can you come up with this smart conculsion, when i never said what i believed about doctrine, all i did was reject "calvanism", maybe i believe one point is very flawed, therefore making it all garbage

you're smart words can't hide your stupidity

[TroddinSod]

@Okstate That fact is dingbat, you've made accusations that you can't substantiate nor defend. So, it's obvious you have nothing intelligent or worthwhile to say. So, why bather saying anything nitwit? You just make yourself out to be a vacuous idiot. The record of it is recorded on this comment board. Keep it up! It's good for Calvinist moral, because you simply prove that Calvinist naysayers are impotent when it comes to presenting an argument that can stand up to the Biblicity of Calvinism.

[TheOkstate2012]

@TroddinSod You said this...

" Yes, 'all' Arminian heretics like yourself don't really care about the Truth or what the Scripture teaches. All thet care about it the promotion of their pagan deity whose will is easily overthrown by man. "

Where is your evidence that I am an arminian? Please do tell. You don't have any.... Thats my accusation, you call me an arminian without any proof that I am one. Which is fact, you don't have to be a bible scholar to figure out this one.

[TroddinSod]

@TheOkstate2012 You're an idiot! I done talking to you.

[TheOkstate2012]

@TroddinSod

You like so dumb

[Blogrich55]

@NewDirection4us Sorry! God bless you!

[TheGenuineChristian]

Oh!!! That was great Rich.

[Blogrich55]

@TheGenuineChristian Thanks and God bless!

[TroddinSod]

Excellent!!

Arminians clearly preach a God that cannot accomplish his will,

whose love in ineffectual,

whose grace is merited,

and whose death on the cross, in & of itself , saves no one.

It's very sad that so many people trust in their intellect to obligate God to save them.

Great video and I love the music. Keep up the good work!! Amen!!!.

[Blogrich55]

@TroddinSod God bless you! Sadly, although I would regard the Arminian as a saved brother or sister in Christ (by the skin of their spiritual teeth) I believe their "gospel" to be man-centered and defective. Arminianism is really humanism couched in biblical terminology. Glad you liked Thelonius Monk. He is one of my favorites but to some an acquired taste.

[TheOkstate2012]

@TroddinSod This makes no sense what so ever. keep on wasting your time over theological debates when thousands of people overseas, have never heard of the gospel.

[TroddinSod]

@TheOkstate2012 Hey ding bat! I've spent over 5 years in the Missions in Africa, what have you done to get the Gospel over there while perverting over here. We are commanded to 'earnestly contend for the once delivered faith unto the Saints'. What you contend for, a Santa Clause God and a Jesus whose suffering and death doesn't save anyone!. Take a good look in the mirror son! You're out of your league.

[TheOkstate2012]

@TroddinSod wow ding bat? I've honestly never heard that one. how old are you?

Sure you have. Well, I've been to one of the most lost countries with the most populated country. I'm not sure what you mean by santa clause god. lol. or saying Jesus's death doesn't save anyone.

Why don't you blow the dust of your bible

and put down your systematic theology

The only person who believes in a "weak" God who can't do what he desires is you, my friend.

[TheOkstate2012]

@TroddinSod

Why don't you start take the Bible for face value, instead of saying "ALL" doesn't mean "ALL"

If God desires all mean to be saved, why wouldn't HE save them??

[TheOkstate2012]

@TheOkstate2012 i don't pervet the Gospel. thanks. I don't think you do either, since I don't think you tell people that God has only chosen some to be saved.

But i know thats what you ignorantly, probably believe

[TroddinSod]

@TheOkstate2012 Is that really all you have to say? Don't you realize your pusil argument was repudiated well over 400 years ago? Are you that ignorant? Suppose you tell me why the word 'all' doesn't mean everyone in Mare 1:5, Rom 8:35, I Corinthians 10:2, Revelation 19:18 etc. There are many more verses where YOU change the plain reading of 'all' to not mean everyone too! How come you're allowed to change the meaning and I'm not? Duh????? You really are dumb, aren't you?

[TheOkstate2012]

@TroddinSod

i dont know. i dont care this much

[TroddinSod]

@TheOkstate2012 Yes, 'all' Arminian heretics like yourself don't really care about the Truth or what the Scripture teaches. All thet care about it the promotion of their pagan deity whose will is easily overthrown by man. Apathy regarding the Truth is the hallmark of nitwits like yourself, who promulgate their heresies but run when presented with the lucid logic and pristine devotion to Scripture that Calvinists wield in defense of True Christianity. So, go ahead little mind, run away!

[TheOkstate2012]

@TroddinSod

You're such a wanna be, lol. this is how dumb you are. I never said I was an arminian, or that i believed in "free will". This proves my point that you care more about calvanism/armeniasm.

if anyone says they diagree with calvanism they are automaticlly labeled as an areminian (BY YOU), or someone who believes in mans free will choice to accept or reject God

idiot, is an idiot

[TroddinSod]

@Okstate Hide behind another name will you,& cause further division among the brethren? Great job nitwit!! All the while you're engaging me with your circular reasoning & non sequitur accusations, you're not reaching out to those over seas with whatever false gospel you embrace.It's clear you can't defend your arguments about the word 'all', nor are you ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you.But you have the time to criticize others who are fully able an ready to defend their faith.

[maxime32]

It might also do you good to simply imagine the sheer arrogance it must take to not simply question a specific received interpretation of Scripture, but to be so arrogant to think that in 1500 years, man was not exposed the "true meaning" of the Bible which was read every Sunday for all to hear until God bopped Calvin on the head with the Special Stick and made him important in a tiny part of the world (oh and look how faithful Geneva and Amsterdam are now!) .

Truely...utterly...insane.

[Blogrich55]

@maxime32 Yeah well it might do YOU some good to study logic and theology and to realize only idiots such as yourself put words in other people's mouths.

1. If you even bothered to READ my last comment I pointed out that Calvinism was not invented by Calvin but the name given to biblical theology. Peter and Paul taught the doctrines of Grace.

2. The Bible was hardly being read in the language of the people every Sunday but in Latin and I seriously DOUBT most people understood it.

Get a grip!

[maxime32]

@Blogrich55

Yeah, it is pretty obvious you said Calvinism was the name given to biblical theology. It is also pretty obvious that is an arrogant and ridiculous statement. 

If you find yourself so intellectually superior, may I ask you if you read Greek? If so, how well?

I think people understood the Latin more than you think. When you are exposed to something from childhood, you naturally absorb it. And in the East, liturgy was always conducted in local languages, not Greek or Latin!

[Blogrich55]

@maxime32 Excuse me Mr Know-it-all, I was NOT exposed to Calvinism from childhood and didn't absorb it. I was raised and originally ordained as a Trinitarian Pentecostal. Calvinism is Christianity. Arrogant? Prove it, don't flap your gums talking me to death. Oh, I chose to learn Spanish instead of Greek. You think people understood Latin. Do you also care to admit men were murdered by the RC Church for translating the Bible into the vernacular? You bring NOTHING to the table but accusations!

[maxime32]

@Blogrich55

It is irrelevant how you were raised. The point is if one attended Latin mass from childhood, he would understand most of the readings and certainly the prayers eventually. The homilies were in local languages anyway. The Orthodox always had service in local languages. I grew up with KJV and the old Anglican prayerbook and these prayers and readings are ingrained in me, whereas apparently some young people find them harder to understand.

[maxime32]

@Blogrich55

And maybe it is arrogant as well to say, but Spanish is an easy language to learn. It also won't give you much insight in reading the Bible. There are many other reasons to learn Spanish which are just fine. I learned French in high school, whatever.

But you cannot claim a tiny sect (2%) of all Christianity is the only true faith and demand others "disprove" you, then allow no avenue for this because you yourself don't understand the original texts.

[Blogrich55]

@maxime32 So how do you know Spanish has no help or light to shed on the study or use of koine Greek? I happen to know otherwise. The verb conjugations work similarly which is foreign to English.

This is the last comment I will accept from you. You are obviously blinded by your denomination. Your snooty cry to know the original texts attitude is useless as well. Many liberal theologians know it better than either of us. You can't disprove Calvinism So go count noses! You LOSE the debate!

[maxime32]

@Blogrich55

Perhaps your angry lashes reveal your un-sanctified state? :P

[Blogrich55]

@maxime32 Or perhaps your smug holier-than-thou attitude and complete lack of biblical awareness just irritates people :-)

[maxime32]

This video is rather dumb. I know the video you are spoofing, which is actually funny. The problem with your video here is that the preacher does not come off sounding terribly bad. I think you Calvinists are only showing how nutty you are with your extremely obscure concerns.

[Blogrich55]

@maxime32 Is it as dumb as the Arminians who practice and preach decisional regeneration? Hmmm?

[maxime32]

@Blogrich55

No, I guess not. However, I don't know that the original video was that simplistic. Most Christians are neither Calvinists (about 2% of Christianity) nor liberal Arminians who think you can just say you love da JEEEEEEZUS and catch the "saved" bug.

[Blogrich55]

@maxime32 Hmm? Maybe YOU can explain, briefly what YOU are and what you see as an alternative to Calvinist or Arminian.

[maxime32]

@Blogrich55

In my experience, Calvinists tend to label everything else Arminian like it's a plague, even though "Arminian" theology occurred in the 17th century within a specifically Reformed context. The Orthodox Christian view predates this and cannot be labelled "Arminian". I believe all are called to be saved and there is no guaranteed perseverance, however one should never take comfort in this lifetime in one's supposed salvation. Salvation comes after a lifelong spiritual struggle.

[Blogrich55]

@maxime32 Well Calvinism is just another word for biblical theology. Calvin certainly didn't invent it. You want a guarantee that the saints will persevere? Jesus said, of His sheep, that He gave them eternal life and they would NEVER perish. Jesus predates the Orthodox Christian view.

[maxime32]

@Blogrich55

Calvin invented Calvinism. It is not to be equated with Biblical theology. The one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church assembled the Bible by a critical evaluation of the many texts available to them and were certainly in a better position to interpret them than Calvin. Calvinist obsessions are obscure and amoral, and even heretical insofar as they imply that God pre-ordained evil. This is anti-Biblical (see the Epistle of James, chapter 1).

[APSOC38]

For all of you Arminians out there, I strongly advise you to read "A Display of Arminianism" by John Owen. He was the foremost of Puritan theologians and was only 26 when he had it published.

[Terri3210]

Ravenous wolves strive to undermine sound doctrine superseding the teaching the teachings of men.

[Blogrich55]

"Ravenous wolves strive to undermine sound doctrine superseding the teaching the teachings of men." Terri3210

Yes and the wolves revel in religion. Religion has always sought to manipulate the gods through magic and ritual. It is indeed a shame when these charlatans turn the gospel into a magical formula or ritual and try to use it to manipulate the True and Living God. It won't work.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved. This is the Bible and it is Truth!

[Terri3210]

Mens minds are dangerous; brainwashing leads to temporary false security. Man NEEDS a remorseful HEART to find Jesus. CONSIDER THESE STEPS:

1) A confession we are a *sinner. Rom 3:23

2) request Jesus forgive us our sins. Ephe 2:4

3)Acceptance of Jesus as our Savior and asking Him to be the Lord of our life. Acts 16:31

4) Acknowledgment that God raised Jesus from the dead. Rom 10:9

5)A request for help to live as Jesus wants us to live. Rom 7:18

MEN DO NOT FOOL the A and the Z

[Blogrich55]

A Display of Arminianism is an excellent  book and it has NEVER been refuted by an Arminian. God bless you.

[hikarihikki]

JoshnJesus, if I believe that Scripture teaches unconditional election, I would've been a Calvinist a long time ago.

It's not that we Arminians don't like what we think the Bible teaches. We just don't agree with you on what the Bible teaches. We're not like liberal theologians who think parts of the Bible are no longer relevant. We're not like Catholics who would go to the Pope whenever a doctrinal disagreement arises. Neither will we be convinced merely because pastor so-and-so said so.

[JoshnJesus]

LOL at :40 "Say the sinners prayer, put your sin aside, and kick the devils butt!" LOL

Good video brother

[Blogrich55]

Thanks Josh. BTW I really liked the video response you gave to Monica. I had considered doing one but you seem to have it all nailed down. God bless brother!

[JoshnJesus]

Thanks Rich. You know, its really sad to see. The hostility of the Arminian side seems so liberal. It's ok for them to attack us, but woe to us if we respond!

Disheartening. Anyway, thanks brother God bless you!

P.S. LOL at :40! So funny!

[hikarihikki]

JoshnJesus,

Attacking Calvinism is not the same thing as attacking Calvinists. We may hate your soteriology, but we love you.

[JoshnJesus]

Your'e conclusively saying you hate what the bible teaches out how and why God saves.

[Blogrich55]

LOL my mother in law used to say tell the truth and shame the devil.

What is so disturbing to me is how the Arminian uses the same arguments the atheists use againsts God's sovereignty. The other thing that gets me is someone who preaches pure Arminian dogma then claims they are neither Calvinist or Arminian. Chuck Smith is good for that one.

God bless.

[hikarihikki]

JoshnJesus, there is a difference between doctrines essential to salvation and doctrines not essential to salvation. Even though all Christians are saved, they don't always agree with each other on everything. Like it or not, people can read the same Bible and disagree on certain theological points. Not just Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Lutheranism, but also believer's baptism vs infant baptism, premillennialism vs postmillennialism vs amillennialism, charismatic vs cessationist, etc.

[JoshnJesus]

You may be saved and believe different things, but what we believe can and will affect the way we preach and teach.

God saves for His Glory by choosing, and commands all ment everywhere to repent and believe.

But those who say God doesn't choose when scripture teaches it,then says they hate that idea, and blasphemously accuses God of being unjust...well, then we have a SERIOUS problem.

[hikarihikki]

We believe in the sovereignty of God, but we believe that some Calvinists' definition of sovereignty is not biblically correct.

If you believe sovereignty of God necessitates unconditional election, you might as well argue that Calvinism can proven true by logic alone without having to quote a single verse of Scripture. In fact, I've heard of such arguments in the past.

[hikarihikki]

There are more Arminians who have read John Calvin's Institutes than Calvinists who have read the Works of James Arminius.

For those who said they were once Arminians before, here's a challenge: in your own words, summarize Arminianism in such a way that Arminians would agree with your summary and not think of it as a straw man.

If you can't do so, then don't claim you were once Arminian.

[Blogrich55]

Calvinism and Arminianism are technical terms.

You don't have to read Calvin to be a calvinist or Arminius to be an Arminian.

[hikarihikki]

You have to read what Calvin wrote in order to say you're a Calvinist (i.e. that your soteriology agrees with Calvin's), and you have to read what Arminius wrote in order to say you're once an Arminian (i.e. that your soteriology once agreed with Arminius').

Otherwise, if you don't consider what Calvin or Arminius actually taught, who defines what is considered "Calvinist" and what is considered "Arminian", and how do you prevent (or at least minimize) bias in your definitions?

[Blogrich55]

"You have to read what Calvin wrote in order to say you're a Calvinist (i.e. that your soteriology agrees with Calvin's), and you have to read what Arminius wrote in order to say you're once an Arminian (i.e. that your soteriology once agreed with Arminius')." hikarihi

This is no more true than to state one must read the works of Marx to be a communist or the works of Freud to be freudian. There are only so many basic ways of looking at soteriology. You will fall into one or another.

[hikarihikki]

Your definition must come from somewhere.

How do you know what does "freudian" mean unless you read Freud? You might very well be using the wrong definition.

There may only be so many basic ways of looking at soteriology, but there are definitely more than two: for instance, where would hyper-Calvinism fit in? Or Lutheranism? And some theologies don't worry about soteriology because they have no concepted about the need of "getting saved".

[Blogrich55]

"Your definition must come from somewhere." hikari

And what about Marx and marxism? Freudian psychology my be derived from Freud but many, many, Freudians have NEVER read his writings. You don't have to read Augustine's writings to be Augustinean either. You believe in certain theories these people held to.

Is man born spiritually dead or alive? How many different basic views are there? Arminianism tries to be a tertium quid and say man is damaged by the fall but still able to use free will.

[hikarihikki]

Where does your definition of "Arminianism" come from?

[numberonesurvivor75]

Arminianism makes no sense to me. How can one ever choose to believe something? You choose by your beliefs.

We have to ultimately accept the absolute sovereignty of God. By doing this, we have the concept of "free will," because our will is free from institutions of man.

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man

which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the

Spirit of God."Corinthians 2:11

[KarensFaith]

Great video! I am learning so much! God bless you!

Karen

[Blogrich55]

Thanks and God bless you!

[Blogrich55]

Thank you. I hope God uses it. God bless you.

[Blogrich55]

"how is this 'good news' better then what the Arminians believe?" DolosChristou

The Arminian scheme is really just a giant gamble. Everybody gets spiritual scratchers and some MIGHT win the deal. It's also possible nobody could win the prize.

The biblical view of salvation, Calvinism, tells of s Good Shepherd who can guarantee that His sheep WiLL (not might) hear His voice and be given eternal life and NEVER perish.Few might find the narrow gate but it does lead to life. The broad path now...

[bossmanham]

That's a ridiculous characterization. We are secure IN CHRIST. It's the Calvinist silliness that is akin to a gamble. God spun that big roulette wheel in the sky to choose who to elect and who to damn.

John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; etc

[numberonesurvivor75]

God wills who believes in Christ as John 3:16 emphasizes belief, not professed insincere lies.

Timothy 2:4 describes how God desires the elect to be saved. "All men to be saved," there implies that God's desire is the key factor in salvation.  Who are any of us to decide for whom God desires salvation with the word "all."

[bossmanham]

Really? So does God only want us to pray for the elect leaders as well? I am just amazed at what people will do to hold on to an a priori assumption.

Why would God need to desire the salvation of the elect? Is there any way they would not come to Him, if they are unconditionally elected?

So, I would suggest you don't add words to and twist the meaning of verses simply to justify your philosophical presupposition.

[numberonesurvivor75]

I'm defending the inerrant word of God to the best of my ability. I'm not adding words and twisting meaning to justify philosophical presupposition at all. In order to truly know what any symbol means, including words in the Bible, one ultimately needs a humbling experience from God for the meaning of the Bible to reveal itself.

[bossmanham]

But that's what is done with verses like this. You explain them away by coming up with some false context that is supposed to make one think that even though the Bible says God loves the world and He wants all men to be saved, he actually doesn't.

[numberonesurvivor75]

No. God can save whomever he chooses. If this were not the case than Timothy 2:4 would be irrelevant because God's desires wouldn't factor into salvation. That's blaspheme. Since God has to be omnipotent by definition, it's downright atheistic.

[bossmanham]

And God has chosen to save those who believe. That doesn't mean He doesn't want all people to come to Him.

"Since God has to be omnipotent by definition, it's downright atheistic."

-What? That's the silliest logic I have ever heard. Just because God can do whatever He wants does not mean Calvinism is true.

[numberonesurvivor75]

God ultimately wills whether one believes in the Son or not. The idea that man can function without God allows for the twisting of the notion of God. What Arminianism worships is not necessarily God at all, but rather themselves. That's how you end up with the Pope, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and the rest of those heretics.

[bossmanham]

"God ultimately wills whether one believes in the Son or not."

-Well no He doesn't, and I am baffled at how you Calvinists can be comfortable with this

"The idea that man can function without God allows for the twisting of the notion of God"

-No one said man can function without God. This is not what I think, and it's not what Arminius taught. No one can come to God without hearing the Word (Romans 10:17) and God displaying His grace to them(Titus 2:11).

[bossmanham]

No one can come to God without His drawing (John 6:44) but the Bible says Jesus draws everyone to Himself (John 12:32).

[numberonesurvivor75]

That depends on what "everyone" means. Jesus decides what it means.

[bossmanham]

And none of those people you mentioned teach that you can act without God either. So, to call them heretics simply because they challenge your pet theology, which is not Biblically based, but based on your philosophical presuppositions and a bunch of out-of-context proof texts, is a little childish don't you think?

[numberonesurvivor75]

Yes, they teach that all the time. However, I believe in biblical inerrancy. To know what the bible truly means, you have to have an humbling experience with God or you'll read it as mythology and fairy tales and not as the true word of God.

[bossmanham]

I also believe in Biblical inerrancy. I do not think the Bible teaches Unconditional election, Limited atonement, irresistable grace, or unconditional perseverance.

I know for a fact that none of those men think you can come to God without Christ.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Have you ever watched their sermons? They clearly deny the omnipotence of God and are truly degenerate. Their "faith" tends to their staunch endorsement of Communist politicians. Keep in mind, an endorsement of George W. Bush was an endorsement of ENTITLED UNIVERSALISM, not even Origenian Universalism.

[bossmanham]

What are you talking about? Politics has no place in this conversation. Who you vote for is not an accurate guage of your stance with God.

You are simply sounding like a silly fundamentalist. This is fruitless.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Yes, it is. When Pat Robertson endorsed the papist Giuliani, he declared himself to not be Christian and promote baby murdering and cultural degeneracy.

[ChristianTULIP]

Where does it say in John3:16 that God loves those who reject Christ? Its the "whosoever believeth" in John 3:16that God Loves out of the World - they are the "World" that God Loves.

John 17:9

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me

Here's what Christ said about those who reject him

John 3:36

.. he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him

Telling those who reject Christ that God loves them is error

[vekl]

Nice video, Blogrich. Keep 'em coming.

[Blogrich55]

Thanks for the encouragement. God bless you!

[ChristianTULIP]

Well we do know from scriptures that God Loved Jacob and hated Esau - so God can certainly hate men.

But whom God may hate is not a revealed knowledge to us. What we do know is that God Loves those who come to believe and follow Christ (Those who have become born again)

So Telling people who reject Christ that God loves them anyway is not good news that cannot be substantiated by the scriptures.

The Good news is telling people the truth of about sin, its penalty and way of salvation.

[bossmanham]

That is what is called an idiom.

Also the Bible says Esau would serve Jacob, but that never actually happened. Esau and Jacob were reconciled.

However, the Edomites (descendants of Esau) were weaker than the Israelites (descendants of Jacob). And if you read Malachi 1 you will see it is not about God hating individuals, but God choosing a nation of people (the Israelites).

Context Context Context .

[Blogrich55]

"Context Context Context . " bossmanham

One of the most sound and important guidelines of good and proper hermeneutics is to examine the OT in light of the NT.

You speak of context? Jaques More has tried to prove the nonsense about Romans 9 being about nations and not individuals. It is an indefensible position.

The sovereignty of God and predestination are all through the Bible. Limited atonement is the logical conclusion and biblically supported. God has a special love for His sheep!

[bossmanham]

So you're saying Paul ripped a bunch of verses out of the OT that were speaking of the NATION of Israel and God's choice of Israel and is applying it to individuals in Romans 9-11? So you're telling me Paul didn't follow "One of the most sound and important guidelines of good and proper hermeneutics"?

[Blogrich55]

Dude, the NT hadn't even been written yet! All they had was the LXX Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT How could HE examine the OT in the light of the NT when it wasn't even written yet???

[bossmanham]

What are you talking about? He was referencing the OT verses when he was writing the letter! (Romans)

[ChristianTULIP]

Boss,

You need to read the New Testament. CONTEXT in Romans 9 will reveal that God's sovereignty over the individual's Jacob & Esau is taught

11For the CHILDREN being not yet born neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works but of him that calleth

God chose individual's out of nations for his Spiritual Israel: 6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all ISRAEL which are of ISRAEL

[bossmanham]

So you're saying God specifically chose Jacob as an individual for eternal salvation and not Esau. So is Esau in hell?

But wait! In Genesis 33 it looked like the two got along great. They were reconciled. Esau personally never served Jacob.

This is because Paul is using the OT context as he should. The OT presented the boys as the figureheads of two nations. God chose one nation and not the other. Paul would not rip the passages out of their OT context to prove a separate point.

[ChristianTULIP]

1)Yes, God specifically chose Jacob for salvation over Esau. Jacob is a figurehead of the individual children of Promise, not nations. Romans is clearly teaching God's election of individuals, not nations

8.. They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed

13As it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated

6So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but God that sheweth Mercy

[numberonesurvivor75]

"Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou

shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land."

Deuteronomy 23:7

God specifically commanded the Israelites to love the nation of Esau. This shows that God did not necessarily hate Edom. How is it possible then for Malachi and Paul to have both been referring to that nation?

[bossmanham]

I never said God hated Edomites. It's an idiom. See Luke 14:26. This is also referring to Edom as a nation, not on an individual level. Kind of like Romans 9. Hmm...

However, God did say, " Even though Edom has said, We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places, Thus says the LORD of hosts: They may build, but I will throw down" (Malachi 1:4).

He is dealing with nations, not individuals.

[numberonesurvivor75]

I wouldn't buy that at all. A nation is merely a series of covenants between man and man. They hold no legitimacy in the eyes of God. How could He have hated the nation of Edom if He told the Israelites to love it?

[bossmanham]

He didn't hate it literally. It's an idiom. Like I said, see Luke 14:26.

[numberonesurvivor75]

There is no difference between literal and figurative when searching for ultimate truth through God.

[ChristianTULIP]

2) The Fact that God Loved Jacob over Esau is revealed throughout scripture:

Malachi 1:2-3 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob

And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness

Psalm 47:4

He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved

Romans 9:13

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

[ChristianTULIP]

I think everyone can agree that it is an affront to be called anything but a Christian, but The question is - Which Theology truly represents what the scriptures teach.

I personally have found the Calvinistic Theology to be more faithful to the comprehensive teachings of the Bible - even the hard truths.

[bossmanham]

S

T

R

A

W

M

A

N

[Blogrich55]

S

T

R

A

W

M

A

N

--bossmanham

Please be so kind as to demonstrate HOW it is. I was an Arminian and trained in Evangelism Explossion. How have I misrepresented them. This is BTW an overdubbing of a straw man video sent to me.

[bossmanham]

First off, not all Arminians agree with this method of evangelism. Second off, I think this attack on the four laws by the fundamentalists as of late is one big straw man. I can see where you might misunderstand #1, but no Christian would disagree with 2, 3, or 4. When it comes to #1, what better plan could God have than the salvation of your soul?

Of course this may all be attached to your silly a priori assumption of Limited Atonement, which actually detracts from the sovereignty of God.

[Blogrich55]

It is one thing to claim it is a strawman and another to demonstrate it. I did a videeo on straw man arguments Arminians use against Calvinists. I demonstrated them as unfounded.

BTW The cricicism of the 4 laws has been around since they came out. Not recent.

You like to make bold, blunt, unfounded claims. I specifically refer to your comment on limited atonement and how it supposedly detracts from God sovereignty.

"I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd give His life for THE SHEEP." Jesus

[bossmanham]

God is limited in the extent of His atonement in that He cannot be sovereign, in your mind, unless He has selected based on an arbitrary decree who will come to Him.

He knows who will come to Him based on His foreknowledge, but He has not selected a scant few to save and created the rest to reprobate.

[Blogrich55]

"God is limited in the extent of His atonement in that He cannot be sovereign, in your mind, unless He has selected based on an arbitrary decree who will come to Him." bossmanham

STRAW MAN ALERT!! It is interesting, to me at least. how the Arminian constantly hops in bed with the atheist when it comes to attacking God's sovereignty in election.

Good grief Charlie Brown! A person can like pistacheo and hate vanilla or prefer Fords to Chevies but when God excercizes choice He's "arbitrary." XD

[bossmanham]

Not to mention this is not reflective of Arminian theology whatsoever. Have you ever read a single iota of what Jacobus Arminius wrote? Truthfully.

[Blogrich55]

"Not to mention this is not reflective of Arminian theology whatsoever. Have you ever read a single iota of what Jacobus Arminius wrote? Truthfully." bossmanham

I was raised as an Arminian and ordained while an Arminian. I did not give up my unbiblical soteriology without a struggle.

Have you read anything by Calvin? What does it matter? Calvin didn't invent Calvinism. I have read many Arminian books. I have also read some of Finney's dispicable nonsense.

What does the Bible say? Thats true!

[bossmanham]

"I was raised as an Arminian and ordained while an Arminian"

-That's not what I asked. What is labeled "Arminian" today is many times mislabeled. It is often semi-pelagian.

I asked if you have read Arminius.

[bossmanham]

Did you know Arminius said: "In this [fallen] state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

[Blogrich55]

"unless they be assisted by grace" bossmanham

ASSISTED! This is why his view are heretical! It is semi-semi Pelagianism or synergism. God doesn't save WE have to do our part. We have to cooperate. Now Calvinists believe men cooperate willingly because God sovereignly changes their will through a new birth.

It is NOT an ify Arminian MAYBE either! Jesus said in no uncertain terms "My sheep hear My voice and I give unto them eternal life and they will NEVER perish."The gospel is clear enough!

[bossmanham]

Yeah, who are His sheep? THOSE WHO BELIEVE.

[Blogrich55]

"Yeah, who are His sheep? THOSE WHO BELIEVE." bossmanham

Actually you've got it backwards. His sheep will believe because He gives them the gift of faith and repentence. THAT is why they believe. Without His grace, NO ONE would believe. Read Joh 6 withouth preconceived blinders.

[ChristianTULIP]

3) Esau did in fact serve Jacob and hated/desired to kill Jacob because he was blessed over Esau

Gen27

40.. and shalt SERVE thy brother.. 41And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I WILL SLAY MY BROTHER JACOB.

Paul demonstrates God's sovereignty in them:

Rom9:15 ..I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion

[bossmanham]

Are we reading the same book of Genesis? No, Esau never served Jacob. Esau hated Jacob for a while, but then they were reconciled.

Romans 9-11 is about God's election of Israel and how it has not failed.

"two NATIONS are in your womb. Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger" (Genesis 25:23).

God did not literally hate Esau, it's an idiom. See Luke 14:26.

[hikarihikki]

bossmanham,

It really seems as though their theology is the lens with which they interpret Scripture.

[ChristianTULIP]

But does the Arminian Gospel actually believe that God has a wonderful plan for those who do not believe?

[Afrikitty]

Monty,

I have a lot of respect for you and what you teach. But saying that John Piper is not a Christian? Could you please explain that, because I don't think that believing a doctrine makes us saved or not saved. I do believe there are essential doctrines that we need for salvation, but believing Limited Atonement is not one of them. If this were the case, then what must we say about Norman Geisler who is not a 5 point Calvinist yet is a Christian of note...... continued...

[RedBeetle]

Afrikitty,

If you knew what Federal Vision was, if you knew what it taught openly, then you would not ask why I call John Piper the heretic he is. Federal Vision mixes the law and the Gospel, thus destroying Justification By Faith Alone. Federal Vision teaches that men must work and merit justification from God. Federal Vision is a rejection of all 5-Solas and all 5-points of Calvinism.

Read "Not Reformed At All" by John Robbins and Sean Gerety. It's a good book on the subject.

[Blogrich55]

Vic Lockman has also produced an excellent 12 page booklet in comics form on Federal Vision. It sums up their nonsense quite clearly.

[Afrikitty]

Monty,

I am a 5 point Calvinist, but I only came to terms with those doctrines about a year after I got saved. I had no clue they even existed before I got saved. Did that make me any less a Christian?

I really need to hear why you say John Piper is not a Christian, please.

[RedBeetle]

You should have made the street preacher look like John Piper, then it would have been perfect!

[Blogrich55]

Glad you liked it Monty. Pass it on please! God bless.

[ChristianTULIP]

I've heard of this John Piper - where does he faulter?

[YoungCalvinist08]

You're gonna turn heads with this one, Bro. Rich ;)

[Blogrich55]

Thanks Doug:D KingJamesVideoman sent me this only it was titled Calvinist Witnessing. I over dubbed it, Their gospel isn't good news at all. It can't keep you saved or even guarantee anyone will ever be saved. I hope God uses it to get people to think these things through.

God bless!