The Sovereignty of God and the Fall

Printable View

09-14-2014, 10:46 PM
Ben

The Sovereignty of God and the Fall

Hello. I’ve found a lot of interesting things on this forum, but I have a question to ask. I recently heard a discussion between a Calvinist and an Arminian regarding God’s sovereignty and the Fall. The Arminian was arguing that in the Calvinist view, since God decreed the Fall thereby making it certain to happen, God is the “author of evil.” The Calvinist replied that in the Arminian view God is also the “author of evil” since he knew it was going to happen, was within his power to prevent it, but chose not to. Obviously there is a difference between the two views, but I thought the Calvinist did have a point here. Since God knew infallibly that the Fall was going to happen, and he could’ve intervened to stop it had he wished, he bears some responsibility for it, but without sin of course.

The Calvinist gave an illustration: if my brother takes an egg out of the carton but it slips out of his fingers and starts rolling off the kitchen counter, I know that if I don’t grab it, it will fall to the floor and break. I know that will happen, and can easily prevent it from happening, but if I chose not to intervene am I not at least partially to blame for the mess on the floor, even if I wasn’t the one who lost control of it in the first place?

That seems to me to be a decent illustration of the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty and the problem of evil. So of course the upshot is: having knowledge of an impending tragedy, and the power to prevent it from happening, but choosing not to use that knowledge and power to avert it, results in culpability. The Arminian in this conversation said that God allowed the Fall for a reason. The Calvinist agreed, saying that the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty renders him the “author of evil” just as much as the Calvinist view, but in both views he did not sin because he did not violate his own laws.

It was a good discussion, but then got sidetracked when the Arminian starting arguing that a believer could lose his salvation, and I found myself agreeing with the Calvinist that that is not what the Bible teaches. Any wisdom here on a response to the view that God’s infallible foreknowledge and omnipotence somehow does not make him culpable for the Fall?

In Christ,

Ben
09-14-2014, 11:41 PM
Churchwork

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Hello. I’ve found a lot of interesting things on this forum, but I have a question to ask. I recently heard a discussion between a Calvinist and an Arminian regarding God’s sovereignty and the Fall. The Arminian was arguing that in the Calvinist view, since God decreed the Fall thereby making it certain to happen, God is the “author of evil.” The Calvinist replied that in the Arminian view God is also the “author of evil” since he knew it was going to happen, was within his power to prevent it, but chose not to. Obviously there is a difference between the two views, but I thought the Calvinist did have a point here. Since God knew infallibly that the Fall was going to happen, and he could’ve intervened to stop it had he wished, he bears some responsibility for it, but without sin of course.

The difference is this. God provided sufficient grace to all to have the choice, including Adam as well as Cain and Abel. Whereas the Calvinist god does not do this. Which is love? Obviously not the latter. If it is wrong for us to treat others this way, how could it not be wrong of your god?

Not only does the Calvinist god not do this, he is utterly unable. If he could do it and he doesn't that would make him evil. If he can't do it then he must bow down to God of the Bible because to do this trumps the god of Calvinism because God of the Bible can do what the god of Calvinism cannot.

Quote:

The Calvinist gave an illustration: if my brother takes an egg out of the carton but it slips out of his fingers and starts rolling off the kitchen counter, I know that if I don’t grab it, it will fall to the floor and break. I know that will happen, and can easily prevent it from happening, but if I chose not to intervene am I not at least partially to blame for the mess on the floor, even if I wasn’t the one who lost control of it in the first place?

The question is how does God intervene? Does He intervene by preteritioning you or catching the egg falling; or does He give the egg the free choice to roll off the counter? Of course we are not mere eggs, since we have free will in God's image so let us not debase the human condition down to an egg.

Quote:

That seems to me to be a decent illustration of the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty and the problem of evil. So of course the upshot is: having knowledge of an impending tragedy, and the power to prevent it from happening, but choosing not to use that knowledge and power to avert it, results in culpability. The Arminian in this conversation said that God allowed the Fall for a reason. The Calvinist agreed, saying that the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty renders him the “author of evil” just as much as the Calvinist view, but in both views he did not sin because he did not violate his own laws.

The question is does God preventing something irresistibly manifest God's glory when He could give us the free choice with sufficient grace to decide? God is culpable, responsible as it is His design. You have received sufficient grace, even though you don't want it; nonetheless you have it so you are "without excuse".

In Arminian, God is not the author of evil, but He does provide all the free choices available to us that we may choose these evils if we so wish. On the other hand Satan is the author of evil because he consciously attempts to entice man to sin. The god of Calvinism does not violate his own laws of arbitrary and capricious preterition and robot irresistible selection. But he does violate God's laws, for God does not irresistibly make the Jews born for the gas chambers and save the Aryan race without sufficient grace for either group to decide.

Quote:

It was a good discussion, but then got sidetracked when the Arminian starting arguing that a believer could lose his salvation, and I found myself agreeing with the Calvinist that that is not what the Bible teaches. Any wisdom here on a response to the view that God’s infallible foreknowledge and omnipotence somehow does not make him culpable for the Fall?

Arminians don't believe a person can lose salvation. Perhaps you were not aware that Jacob Arminius said, never once did he ever teach a person could lose salvation. Perhaps you are thinking of Remonstrants which include the Roman Catholics and most major religions being non-OSASers. For example, half of Methodists are Calvinists and the other half Remonstrants. Very popular groups unlike Christians, that is, OSAS Arminians which are a "little flock" (Luke 12.32).
09-15-2014, 08:17 PM
Ben

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The difference is this. God provided sufficient grace to all to have the choice, including Adam as well as Cain and Abel. Whereas the Calvinist god does not do this. Which is love? Obviously not the latter. If it is wrong for us to treat others this way, how could it not be wrong of your god?

Both Calvinism and Arminianism understand God to give grace to sinners before they are born-again. For the Calvinist its irresistible grace, for the Arminian its prevenient grace. Both types of grace are given to sinners without their consent, and both result in the ability to choose Christ, an ability that does not reside in sinners naturally.

Quote:

Not only does the Calvinist god not do this, he is utterly unable. If he could do it and he doesn't that would make him evil. If he can't do it then he must bow down to God of the Bible because to do this trumps the god of Calvinism because God of the Bible can do what the god of Calvinism cannot.

But I think we Arminians are in the same boat here. God could convince everyone, or at least a lot more people than he actually does, to come to faith in Christ of their own freewill. He could appear to them like he did to Saul on the road to Damascus, or he could perform healing miracles, or send angels, or write the gospel message in the clouds, etc. But for his own reasons he chooses not to do so, as is his right to do. For both the Calvinist as well as the Arminian, God restrains his self-revelation to sinners (not that he is obligated to do otherwise).

Quote:

The question is how does God intervene? Does He intervene by preteritioning you or catching the egg falling; or does He give the egg the free choice to roll off the counter? Of course we are not mere eggs, since we have free will in God's image so let us not debase the human condition down to an egg.

So are you saying God intervened in the Garden to prevent Adam and Eve from sinning? How? And if he did not, why not?

Quote:

The question is does God preventing something irresistibly manifest God's glory when He could give us the free choice with sufficient grace to decide? God is culpable, responsible as it is His design. You have received sufficient grace, even though you don't want it; nonetheless you have it so you are "without excuse".

So then we seem to agree that God is culpable for the Fall, at least in a non-sinful way.
I’m not sure how receiving sufficient prevenient grace when I don’t want it is all that different from irresistible grace of the Calvinists. Can you clarify? Sorry, I’m still sort of new to all these distinctions.

Quote:

In Arminian, God is not the author of evil, but He does provide all the free choices available to us that we may choose these evils if we so wish. On the other hand Satan is the author of evil because he consciously attempts to entice man to sin. The god of Calvinism does not violate his own laws of arbitrary and capricious preterition and robot irresistible selection. But he does violate God's laws, for God does not irresistibly make the Jews born for the gas chambers and save the Aryan race without sufficient grace for either group to decide.

I’ve heard this Calvinist argue that God is not arbitrary in election or reprobation, that he has a reason for choosing as he does. And I’ve heard him say that man’s depravity limits his freedom (he’s not merely sick in sin, he is dead in sin, to use Paul’s characterization) until it is renewed by the Holy Spirit. That depravity is what necessitates God’s grace in the first place (whether it is construed as irresistible or prevenient). I’m still chewing on all that.

Quote:

Arminians don't believe a person can lose salvation. Perhaps you were not aware that Jacob Arminius said, never once did he ever teach a person could lose salvation. Perhaps you are thinking of Remonstrants which include the Roman Catholics and most major religions being non-OSASers. For example, half of Methodists are Calvinists and the other half Remonstrants. Very popular groups unlike Christians, that is, OSAS Arminians which are a "little flock" (Luke 12.32).

It’s my understanding that most people today who claim to be Arminians also reject perseverance of the saints, even if Arminius himself did not. I think that is the common view over at the Society of Evangelical Arminians, for example. But no matter, theological labels are not a big deal to me. I don’t believe a genuine believer can lose his salvation, that much at least I think Calvinism has right. And though genuine believers started out as a little flock, they will grow into such a great multitude that no one can count (Rev. 7:9). Praise God!
09-16-2014, 05:25 PM
Churchwork

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Both Calvinism and Arminianism understand God to give grace to sinners before they are born-again. For the Calvinist its irresistible grace, for the Arminian its prevenient grace. Both types of grace are given to sinners without their consent, and both result in the ability to choose Christ, an ability that does not reside in sinners naturally.

Irresistible grace is not given to the sinner, nor would that give the person the ability to choose.

Quote:

But I think we Arminians are in the same boat here. God could convince everyone, or at least a lot more people than he actually does, to come to faith in Christ of their own freewill. He could appear to them like he did to Saul on the road to Damascus, or he could perform healing miracles, or send angels, or write the gospel message in the clouds, etc. But for his own reasons he chooses not to do so, as is his right to do. For both the Calvinist as well as the Arminian, God restrains his self-revelation to sinners (not that he is obligated to do otherwise).

Arminians are not in the same boat as Calvinists. The way God does things is perfectly righteous. Asking Him to do more than that would not be. And Paul could have rejected Jesus. You can say God is obligated to perform the way He does because He is obligated to do things perfectly being perfect in Himself.

Quote:

So are you saying God intervened in the Garden to prevent Adam and Eve from sinning? How? And if he did not, why not?

Adam and Eve did sin in the Garden.

Quote:

So then we seem to agree that God is culpable for the Fall, at least in a non-sinful way. I’m not sure how receiving sufficient prevenient grace when I don’t want it is all that different from irresistible grace of the Calvinists. Can you clarify? Sorry, I’m still sort of new to all these distinctions.

God is not culpable for the Fall in the sense you think. He is culpable only in the sense that He affords man the free choice to fall. You're made in God's image and given sufficient grace. Not wanting something after it is already given to you is entirely delusional. It would be like a dog asking God to not be a dog, but some other animal. Sufficient grace is different from irresistible grace in that the latter doesn't give you the free choice, and not giving you the free choice is basically robots. The latter does not glorify God when He can and does do the former. So God trumps your god every time because your god can't do what God does which is far better.

Quote:

I’ve heard this Calvinist argue that God is not arbitrary in election or reprobation, that he has a reason for choosing as he does. And I’ve heard him say that man’s depravity limits his freedom (he’s not merely sick in sin, he is dead in sin, to use Paul’s characterization) until it is renewed by the Holy Spirit. That depravity is what necessitates God’s grace in the first place (whether it is construed as irresistible or prevenient). I’m still chewing on all that.

You are depraved but not totally depraved. "Dead" in the Bible means disassociation from life or cessation of communication, not Total inability. You can still help an old lady across the street and so you still have free will though it has been damaged. Sufficient grace by the Holy Spirit is given to make the choice, to search God out with all your heart and soul so that you shall surely find Him. If willing, God will give you the gift of repentance and faith to believe in Him to be regenerated and receive eternal life which can never be lost. In Calvinism its god is arbitrary and capricious because it saves and sends people to Hell irresistibly giving them no opportunity to have the free choice. What love is that?

I couldn't acknowledge you as a brother in Christ or break bread with you unless you came to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior to be regenerated. If you came to me and instead said that you were regenerated that caused you to repent and believe, I would rebuke you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That's my responsible role to do so.

Quote:

It’s my understanding that most people today who claim to be Arminians also reject perseverance of the saints, even if Arminius himself did not. I think that is the common view over at the Society of Evangelical Arminians, for example. But no matter, theological labels are not a big deal to me. I don’t believe a genuine believer can lose his salvation, that much at least I think Calvinism has right. And though genuine believers started out as a little flock, they will grow into such a great multitude that no one can count (Rev. 7:9). Praise God!

You would be wrong. Jacob Arminius said never once did he ever teach a person could lose salvation. That's what he said. There are no Arminians who don't accept preservation of the saints; otherwise they would be Remonstrants. Whatever common or popular view of things is, it doesn't matter, because Arminius said what he said. So don't sin bearing false witness against him. Non-OSASers are Remonstrants.

Calvinists have it wrong, because we are not once-saved-always-saved by being irresistibly forced into it, or pridefully proclaiming on a pedestal that it is so. Rather, we whom are saved are saved because we gave our lives to the God who keeps, knowing we can't keep ourselves saved, for salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. Moreover, Calvinists use the phrase not preservation of the saints but "Perseverance of the Saints" as if salvation is kept by working for it, persevering for it. Such language doesn't on its face fit what Calvinist really believe. What they really mean is that they were irresistibly made to persevere, which again, is robots. God wants fellowship not with robots, but humans made in His image with sufficient grace to have the free choice; something your god will never be able to do.

The body of Christ always remains a "little flock" (Luke 12.32) in terms of the total number of human beings who ever lived. Though Rev. 7.9 may not include all those who are saved it is at least 200,000,000 as the largest number in the Bible. But since the New City is 1379 x 1379 miles, one might thing that could comfortably fit a billion saved souls. But that is a little flock compared to say 50 billion since Adam and another 250 billion in millennial kingdom. 1 / 300 is a little flock.

If you ask what the most popular teachings in Christendom are today, one could say Calvinism, Remonstrant, Historicism (Preterism, Postmill, Amill) and Gibberish Babble (Pentecostalism).
09-16-2014, 09:54 PM
Ben

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Irresistible grace is not given to the sinner, nor would that give the person the ability to choose.

Right, my point was simply that both understand that sinners require grace before they can begin moving towards God.

Quote:

Arminians are not in the same boat as Calvinists. The way God does things is perfectly righteous. Asking Him to do more than that would not be. And Paul could have rejected Jesus. You can say God is obligated to perform the way He does because He is obligated to do things perfectly being perfect in Himself.

I agree, God is only limited by his own holy character. And you’re right, Paul could’ve refused to obey God after his Damascus road experience, but God chooses not to appear to all sinners in such a dramatic and convincing fashion. If he did, I suspect more sinners would be converted.

Quote:

Adam and Eve did sin in the Garden.

Agreed, but God did not intervene when the serpent was tempting Eve, even though he could have.

Quote:

God is not culpable for the Fall in the sense you think. He is culpable only in the sense that He affords man the free choice to fall. You're made in God's image and given sufficient grace. Not wanting something after it is already given to you is entirely delusional. It would be like a dog asking God to not be a dog, but some other animal. Sufficient grace is different from irresistible grace in that the latter doesn't give you the free choice, and not giving you the free choice is basically robots. The latter does not glorify God when He can and does do the former. So God trumps your god every time because your god can't do what God does which is far better.

Not sure what you mean by “your god”, but you said earlier “You have received sufficient grace, even though you don't want it" which as I understand it, is similar to Calvinism’s irresistible grace – it’s unasked-for grace.

Quote:

You are depraved but not totally depraved. "Dead" in the Bible means disassociation from life or cessation of communication, not Total inability. You can still help an old lady across the street and so you still have free will though it has been damaged.

I agree. There certainly is a sense in which lost sinners can perform good works, like helping the little old lady across the street. After all, Jesus said:

³²“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. ³³And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. (Luke 6:32-33)

But I don’t think lost sinners can perform good in the highest sense, meaning works that are done to the glory of God, in obedience to his Word, and motivated by faith and love for Christ. I think this is what Paul has in mind when he wrote:

⁷For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. ⁸Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:7-8)

That’s why we all need grace, because our minds are naturally hostile to God and cannot submit to his law.

Quote:

Sufficient grace by the Holy Spirit is given to make the choice, to search God out with all your heart and soul so that you shall surely find Him. If willing, God will give you the gift of repentance and faith to believe in Him to be regenerated and receive eternal life which can never be lost.

Amen, brother.

Quote:

In Calvinism its god is arbitrary and capricious because it saves and sends people to Hell irresistibly giving them no opportunity to have the free choice. What love is that?

You’d have to ask a Calvinist to answer that one.

Quote:

I couldn't acknowledge you as a brother in Christ or break bread with you unless you came to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior to be regenerated. If you came to me and instead said that you were regenerated that caused you to repent and believe, I would rebuke you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That's my responsible role to do so.

Nor would I acknowledge someone as a brother in Christ unless he first repented of his sin and trusted in Christ alone for his salvation.

Quote:

You would be wrong. Jacob Arminius said never once did he ever teach a person could lose salvation. That's what he said.

I didn’t say Arminius taught that a believer could lose his salvation. I said “most people today who claim to be Arminians also reject perseverance of the saints, even if Arminius himself did not.”

Quote:

There are no Arminians who don't accept preservation of the saints; otherwise they would be Remonstrants. Whatever common or popular view of things is, it doesn't matter, because Arminius said what he said. So don't sin bearing false witness against him. Non-OSASers are Remonstrants.

I am not bearing false witness against Arminius. I trust you’ve done the research, I have not, so if you say Arminius taught OSAS, I’ll take your word for it.

Quote:

Calvinists have it wrong, because we are not once-saved-always-saved by being irresistibly forced into it, or pridefully proclaiming on a pedestal that it is so. Rather, we whom are saved are saved because we gave our lives to the God who keeps, knowing we can't keep ourselves saved, for salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. Moreover, Calvinists use the phrase not preservation of the saints but "Perseverance of the Saints" as if salvation is kept by working for it, persevering for it. Such language doesn't on its face fit what Calvinist really believe. What they really mean is that they were irresistibly made to persevere, which again, is robots. God wants fellowship not with robots, but humans made in His image with sufficient grace to have the free choice; something your god will never be able to do.

Calvinists and Arminians certainly disagree on the “how” of OSAS, but agree that a genuine born-again believer cannot lose his or her salvation.

Quote:

The body of Christ always remains a "little flock" (Luke 12.32) in terms of the total number of human beings who ever lived. Though Rev. 7.9 may not include all those who are saved it is at least 200,000,000 as the largest number in the Bible. But since the New City is 1379 x 1379 miles, one might thing that could comfortably fit a billion saved souls. But that is a little flock compared to say 50 billion since Adam and another 250 billion in millennial kingdom. 1 / 300 is a little flock.

Perhaps. I’m not too concerned about speculating on the ratios of saved-to-unsaved regarding future generations. I just know that John teaches us that the saved will be such a great multitude that no one can count!

Quote:

If you ask what the most popular teachings in Christendom are today, one could say Calvinism, Remonstrant, Historicism (Preterism, Postmill, Amill) and Gibberish Babble (Pentecostalism).

And the largest group, Roman Catholics. And the various Eastern Orthodox churches. Sadly none of them preach the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.
09-17-2014, 06:45 PM
Churchwork

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Right, my point was simply that both understand that sinners require grace before they can begin moving towards God.

Except that the grace of Calvinism is not the grace of God because grace is not irresistibly imposed. Moreover you said both provide free will which is of course impossible. The ability to choose is resident within the believer for that is how God made us in His image with sufficient grace.

Quote:

I agree, God is only limited by his own holy character. And you’re right, Paul could’ve refused to obey God after his Damascus road experience, but God chooses not to appear to all sinners in such a dramatic and convincing fashion. If he did, I suspect more sinners would be converted.

Of course that is just an assumption on your part; maybe less would believe in Him, so maybe it is not about seeing Jesus physically to convince you. In either case, the fact remains everyone has received sufficient grace to have the free choice, something your god is unable to provide.

Quote:

Agreed, but God did not intervene when the serpent was tempting Eve, even though he could have.

I am not sure how you would want God to intervene in the Garden or what that means to you, but that would not be reflective of giving man the free choice. So there, again, Calvinism is false.

Quote:

Not sure what you mean by “your god”, but you said earlier “You have received sufficient grace, even though you don't want it" which as I understand it, is similar to Calvinism’s irresistible grace – it’s unasked-for grace.

You've been attempting to defend Calvinism, that's what I mean when I say your god. You're confusing grace generally with irresistibly imposed salvation taught by Calvinists. That's the kind of grace we are discussing that is unholy.

Quote:

I agree. There certainly is a sense in which lost sinners can perform good works, like helping the little old lady across the street. After all, Jesus said:

³²“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. ³³And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. (Luke 6:32-33)

But I don’t think lost sinners can perform good in the highest sense, meaning works that are done to the glory of God, in obedience to his Word, and motivated by faith and love for Christ. I think this is what Paul has in mind when he wrote:

⁷For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. ⁸Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:7-8)

That’s why we all need grace, because our minds are naturally hostile to God and cannot submit to his law.

What about big old ladies? That was probably a Freudian slip because we were talking about the little flock.

You're confusing works with faith. If you search God out with all your heart and soul you will find Him and God will give you the gift of faith. If your mind is set on the flesh, it is not set on discovering God. We are not talking about works here, we are talking about how faith is acquired, by irresistibly imposed salvation or given the free choice through human ability. Even human ability is God's grace.

Quote:

You’d have to ask a Calvinist to answer that one.

You haven't said you are not a Calvinist though many times defending Calvinism.

Quote:

Nor would I acknowledge someone as a brother in Christ unless he first repented of his sin and trusted in Christ alone for his salvation.

But if that repentance was claimed to be irresistibly imposed as Calvinists claim it would not be genuine. So you still should not break bread with him, because he would not be trusting in Christ alone, but worshiping a false Christ.

Quote:

I didn’t say Arminius taught that a believer could lose his salvation. I said “most people today who claim to be Arminians also reject perseverance of the saints, even if Arminius himself did not.”

I didn't say you said Arminius taught a believer could lose salvation. You said, "I think Calvinism has right." And I explained whey Calvinism does not have it right for to be once-saved-always-saved is not irresistibly imposed, but a free choice to be receive the Jesus to be kept. You are always defending Calvinism. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. We shall know them by their fruits.

Quote:

I am not bearing false witness against Arminius. I trust you’ve done the research, I have not, so if you say Arminius taught OSAS, I’ll take your word for it.

You brought up that most who claim to be Arminians believe in non-OSAS not without suggesting by you that Arminians are non-OSAS when of course they are not. Otherwise you would not have brought it up. Moreover, you already exposed your hand in the first post when you said "when the Arminian starting arguing that a believer could lose his salvation." Arminians don't believe a person can lose salvation, so you've been caught.

Quote:

Calvinists and Arminians certainly disagree on the “how” of OSAS, but agree that a genuine born-again believer cannot lose his or her salvation.

The Calvinist is not a genuine born-again believer, because of the how. The Calvinist is unwilling to repent to the cross to be regenerated.

Quote:

Perhaps. I’m not too concerned about speculating on the ratios of saved-to-unsaved regarding future generations. I just know that John teaches us that the saved will be such a great multitude that no one can count!

God gave us the size of the New City to interpret. This is the word of God which should be important to you. It leads to ratios to the total number of human beings who have ever lived out of whom a little flock are saved. You don't even need to know the size of the New City or what would comfortably fit that space of 1379 x 1379 miles, how many people there were since Adam and how many people there will be in the millennial kingdom. All you need to do is walk down the street and start talking to people to find out so few are saved. That great number is a "little flock" (Luke 12.32) for God does not contradict Himself. At any one time there are not that many people alive saved on earth so this never turns into a great number of living saved; most people are asleep, certainly not a mustard seed turned into a great tree. It is not promised the saved would turn into a big flock: as the body of Christ they are a little flock and remain so. This has to do with the fact that God is not a respecter of persons in any age to be saved or not to be saved.

There was actually a lot of people saved during Jesus' day, including the 3000 and the 5000. Isaiah was told there were 7000 others in his day. As a percentage of the population back then it would be a higher percentage of saved than is the case today, for the overall population was considerably less back then. In Matt. 13 the tiny mustard seed grew into a great big tree with birds on its branches representing demons. This depicts the Roman Catholic Church, the great harlot of religious Rome, that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications. While the RCC has always been a great percentage of the population, the "little flock" have not even still to this day. You may think 1 in 3 or 1 in 10 are saved when in reality it is more like 1 in 100 to 1 in 300. Afford me some liberty here, but don't miss the point.

Quote:

And the largest group, Roman Catholics. And the various Eastern Orthodox churches. Sadly none of them preach the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.

They are non-OSASers.
10-03-2014, 09:32 PM
Ben

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Except that the grace of Calvinism is not the grace of God because grace is not irresistibly imposed. Moreover you said both provide free will which is of course impossible. The ability to choose is resident within the believer for that is how God made us in His image with sufficient grace.

No, you’re incorrect. Both Calvinism and Arminianism assert the freedom of God’s moral creatures.

Quote:

Of course that is just an assumption on your part; maybe less would believe in Him, so maybe it is not about seeing Jesus physically to convince you. In either case, the fact remains everyone has received sufficient grace to have the free choice, something your god is unable to provide.

No, I assure you, my God provides freedom to all people, we just disagree on what kind of freedom that is. You assume too much.

Quote:

I am not sure how you would want God to intervene in the Garden or what that means to you, but that would not be reflective of giving man the free choice. So there, again, Calvinism is false.

It’s not a matter of what I would want God to do, but the fact that God chose not to intervene in the Garden when he could have, and still preserved Adam and Eve’s freewill.

Quote:

You've been attempting to defend Calvinism, that's what I mean when I say your god. You're confusing grace generally with irresistibly imposed salvation taught by Calvinists. That's the kind of grace we are discussing that is unholy.

Prevenient grace is likewise irresistible. Its different than the Calvinist irresistible grace, but both are grace that God “imposes” on sinners who did not ask for it.

Quote:

You're confusing works with faith. If you search God out with all your heart and soul you will find Him and God will give you the gift of faith. If your mind is set on the flesh, it is not set on discovering God. We are not talking about works here, we are talking about how faith is acquired, by irresistibly imposed salvation or given the free choice through human ability. Even human ability is God's grace.

The mind set on the flesh is the unconverted sinner’s mind. Not until he receives grace does he receive a mind that is not hostile to God and can thus please him.

Quote:

You haven't said you are not a Calvinist though many times defending Calvinism.

Hmmm, I haven’t said I’m not a lot of things. Come to think of it, you haven’t said you’re not a Calvinist. Heretic!

Quote:

I didn't say you said Arminius taught a believer could lose salvation. You said, "I think Calvinism has right." And I explained whey Calvinism does not have it right for to be once-saved-always-saved is not irresistibly imposed, but a free choice to be receive the Jesus to be kept. You are always defending Calvinism. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. We shall know them by their fruits.

I’m not defending Calvinism, I’m clarifying their view, even if I don’t hold it, a view which I don’t think you rightly understand. Both Calvinists and Arminians teach that sinners receive Jesus by a free choice.

Quote:

You brought up that most who claim to be Arminians believe in non-OSAS

Which is accurate. Most claiming the mantle of Arminius teach believers can lose their salvation. If this were not so, you would not have to constantly modify the word “Arminianism” by sticking the “OSAS” in front of it.

Quote:

not without suggesting by you that Arminians are non-OSAS when of course they are not. Otherwise you would not have brought it up. Moreover, you already exposed your hand in the first post when you said "when the Arminian starting arguing that a believer could lose his salvation." Arminians don't believe a person can lose salvation, so you've been caught.

Arminians do teach believers can lose their salvation. Only the “OSAS-Arminians” deny that, which is apparently the handful of people who contribute to this forum.

Quote:

The Calvinist is not a genuine born-again believer, because of the how. The Calvinist is unwilling to repent to the cross to be regenerated.

Ah, so you’re one of those hyper-Arminians who believe only they are saved. You draw the circle too small.

Quote:

God gave us the size of the New City to interpret. This is the word of God which should be important to you. It leads to ratios to the total number of human beings who have ever lived out of whom a little flock are saved.

It “leads” to that only thru your fertile imagination. The “little flock” of Luke 12:32 was Jesus’ twelve disciples (v.22). You rip that phrase out of its biblical context and apply it to the church universal.

Quote:

You don't even need to know the size of the New City or what would comfortably fit that space of 1379 x 1379 miles, how many people there were since Adam and how many people there will be in the millennial kingdom. All you need to do is walk down the street and start talking to people to find out so few are saved. That great number is a "little flock" (Luke 12.32) for God does not contradict Himself. At any one time there are not that many people alive saved on earth so this never turns into a great number of living saved; most people are asleep, certainly not a mustard seed turned into a great tree. It is not promised the saved would turn into a big flock: as the body of Christ they are a little flock and remain so. This has to do with the fact that God is not a respecter of persons in any age to be saved or not to be saved.

The New City does not measure 1379 x 1379 miles, it measures 12,000 x 12,000 stadia. 12 being the number of God’s people (12 tribes, 12 apostles), and 1,000 the number of fullness. This is the word of God which should be important to you.

Quote:

There was actually a lot of people saved during Jesus' day, including the 3000 and the 5000. Isaiah was told there were 7000 others in his day. As a percentage of the population back then it would be a higher percentage of saved than is the case today, for the overall population was considerably less back then. In Matt. 13 the tiny mustard seed grew into a great big tree with birds on its branches representing demons. This depicts the Roman Catholic Church, the great harlot of religious Rome, that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications.

Wow, now I know you don’t know how to read Scripture in context. You say the mustard seed which grew into a great big tree is the great harlot, the RCC, filled with demons. You directly contradict Jesus. Jesus said the mustard seed is a metaphor, not for the false church of Rome, but for the kingdom of heaven:

³¹He told them another parable: “The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS LIKE A MUSTARD SEED, which a man took and planted in his field. ³²Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.” (Matt. 13:31-32)

What Christ calls sacred, you call Satanic. You have lost all credibility in interpreting Scripture. Put down Watchman Nee, repent, and submit yourself to the inerrant Word of God.

Quote:

While the RCC has always been a great percentage of the population, the "little flock" have not even still to this day. You may think 1 in 3 or 1 in 10 are saved when in reality it is more like 1 in 100 to 1 in 300.

That’s because the “little flock” consisted of 12 men.

Quote:

Afford me some liberty here, but don't miss the point.

Afford you some liberty? Is that a joke? Like the “liberty” you’ve afforded me thus far?

You take a great deal of “liberty” with the Word of God. So much so that you contradict the Lord Jesus Christ.

Repent of your hyper-Arminianism.

Repent of your hyper-dispensationalism.

Repent of your false claim to be apostles. True apostles had to have been witness to the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 9:1).

Repent of your schismatic desire to start your own denomination because you think there are too many denominations already. How’s that working out for you anyway? How many “biblical localities” have you started since 2004? According to your Meeting Place Finder, the answer is zero.

I’m done with this forum. Its dead anyway. Don't bother banning me, I'm dusting off my feet of this heretical, schismatic, Christ-contradicting place.
10-05-2014, 03:15 PM
Churchwork

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

No, you’re incorrect. Both Calvinism and Arminianism assert the freedom of God’s moral creatures.

Calvinists assert Total depravity so therefore, no free will. That which is irresistibly imposed or denied is not free. The first point of Arminian is called "human ability". The first point of Calvinism is called "total depravity". Human ability is free will. Total depravity makes one unable to have the free choice. Since the Bible teaches free will Calvinists are not Christians. They are thus, going to Hell as they pride themselves on a pedestal they are irresistibly selected. Pompous!

Quote:

No, I assure you, my God provides freedom to all people, we just disagree on what kind of freedom that is. You assume too much.

Christians, i.e. Arminians, don't consider what you teach as freedom because you claim it must be irresistibly imposed. Calvinism is a heresy.

Quote:

It’s not a matter of what I would want God to do, but the fact that God chose not to intervene in the Garden when he could have, and still preserved Adam and Eve’s freewill.

God did intervene in the Garden, imploring not to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Calvinists say men was Totally depraved. Christians say not.

Quote:

Prevenient grace is likewise irresistible. Its different than the Calvinist irresistible grace, but both are grace that God “imposes” on sinners who did not ask for it.

Prevenient grace given to everyone to have the free choice is irresistibly given free choice since we are all made in God's image (that too is irresistibly given), but not irresistibly in the sense that it is imposed to make you believe or not believe as is taught in Calvinism under their view of irresistible grace and preterition. Two alleged graces that contradict each other cannot both be grace. What is Satanic grace that which you believe in being Calvinist robots.

Quote:

The mind set on the flesh is the unconverted sinner’s mind. Not until he receives grace does he receive a mind that is not hostile to God and can thus please him.

The mind set on the flesh (free choice) is unconverted not the unconverted is irresistibly set on the flesh. You got the cart before the horse. The Bible says repent ye this day and be converted, not if you are converted repent yet this day. Everyone has received sufficient grace to receive a mind that is not hostile to God. To suggest otherwise is the lie in your heart. God does not preterition people for Hell. That would be evil. My prayer is one day you give your life to Christ and be converted.

Quote:

Hmmm, I haven’t said I’m not a lot of things. Come to think of it, you haven’t said you’re not a Calvinist. Heretic!

My profile says I am not a Calvinist. Your profile says you are not a Calvinist yet you defend Calvinism. The Bible says "be not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Satan is the author of confusion. It's difficult for you to repent of this because you are so proud, always rationalize self.

Quote:

I’m not defending Calvinism, I’m clarifying their view, even if I don’t hold it, a view which I don’t think you rightly understand. Both Calvinists and Arminians teach that sinners receive Jesus by a free choice.

You are not clarifying Calvinism, but misrepresenting it while other times agreeing with it. You're confused. Calvinists don't teach sinners receive Jesus by a free choice, for they are rather, allegedly irresistibly made to believe they claim. Whereas Christians, Arminians, teach that God has given us all sufficient grace to have the free choice. Your god is unable to do that so your god sucks. I do love that my God trumps your god.

Quote:

Which is accurate. Most claiming the mantle of Arminius teach believers can lose their salvation. If this were not so, you would not have to constantly modify the word “Arminianism” by sticking the “OSAS” in front of it.

Whether you think most who claim to be Arminians believe in non-OSAS is up for debate even though there are some for sure, but no actual Arminians believe in non-OSAS. The reason why OSAS is placed in front of Arminian to ensure no such confusion exists as I know there is some. So don't fight it. Accept it, for it is true.

Quote:

Arminians do teach believers can lose their salvation. Only the “OSAS-Arminians” deny that, which is apparently the handful of people who contribute to this forum.

You said "Arminians do teach believers can lose their salvation." No Arminians teach a person can lose salvation, for Jacob Arminius said never once did he ever teach a person could lose salvation, so you are just sinning bearing false witness. Since you continue to do this evilly, it is time for you to go. All Arminians are OSAS. There are no non-OSAS Arminians. You would be welcome to stay if you did not continue to sin this sin. I can't have this particular deception on your part persist here.

Quote:

Ah, so you’re one of those hyper-Arminians who believe only they are saved. You draw the circle too small.

All Christians are saved. All Arminians are Christians and all Christians are Arminians, for Christians are those who have repented to the cross as helpless sinners to receive regeneration. This is the gospel. None other! If you consider the gospel to be hyper that's your problem not mine. The "little flock" (Luke 12.32) is too small a circle for you. I agree, so you are going to Hell.

Quote:

It “leads” to that only thru your fertile imagination. The “little flock” of Luke 12:32 was Jesus’ twelve disciples (v.22). You rip that phrase out of its biblical context and apply it to the church universal.

The size of the New City is a certain size for a reason. The reason has been given which you reject, but you have no reason for doing so other than wanting to be part of a large flock. Luke 12.32 to His disciples is representative of the entire class of believers that is a little flock. Never has the Church ever been a large flock inclusive of so many. We find this in experience today too, for it is hard to find true believers. We have no reason to believe the savings ratio will improve in later generations but remains very low until full select chosen ones are attained to fill the New City as pillars. Your great mistaken assumption about the body of Christ being a large flock is your immoral downfall to include so many then that helps you think you could be included as well. I am glad the present and future will not bear this out to include so many sinners as you are apt to do.

Quote:

The New City does not measure 1379 x 1379 miles, it measures 12,000 x 12,000 stadia. 12 being the number of God’s people (12 tribes, 12 apostles), and 1,000 the number of fullness. This is the word of God which should be important to you.

12,000 x 12,000 stadia is 1379 x 1379 miles. 12 is the number of eternal perfection. Hence, the 12 gates too. 1000 refers to the millennial kingdom. The millennial kingdom is temporary between the Church age and eternity future in the New City. 1000 years to us is also like a day to God to express His timelessness. Your alteration of the meaning creates problems for you. The Bible says not one tittle of the law shall pass till the 1000 years is completed. It hasn't started yet. It will when Jesus returns to reign on earth for 1000 years. I can't agree with you in your view.

Quote:

Wow, now I know you don’t know how to read Scripture in context. You say the mustard seed which grew into a great big tree is the great harlot, the RCC, filled with demons. You directly contradict Jesus. Jesus said the mustard seed is a metaphor, not for the false church of Rome, but for the kingdom of heaven:
³¹He told them another parable: “The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS LIKE A MUSTARD SEED, which a man took and planted in his field. ³²Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.” (Matt. 13:31-32)
What Christ calls sacred, you call Satanic. You have lost all credibility in interpreting Scripture. Put down Watchman Nee, repent, and submit yourself to the inerrant Word of God.

The parable of the mustard seed is parallel with the parable of the leaven, except that the mustard seed speaks of the external while the leaven speaks of the internal. That being the case it can be said the kingdom of heaven has 3 aspects: outward appearance (includes false Christians such as yourself and the RCC), outward conduct (Matt. 5-7), and reigning in the millennial kingdom-to-come. Because you don't understand what the kingdom of heaven is, naturally you are confused. If you would like a deeper study on the mustard seed search the term "mustard" here:

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Matthew_13.htm

Quote:

That’s because the “little flock” consisted of 12 men.

All the disciples were the little flock in Jesus' day. Many who were following Jesus in name only left: they are the false disciples who found his teachings too hard.

Quote:

Afford you some liberty? Is that a joke? Like the “liberty” you’ve afforded me thus far? You take a great deal of “liberty” with the Word of God. So much so that you contradict the Lord Jesus Christ.

What liberty are you feeling you have not received? I have continued to let you post. You continue to defend Calvinism while in your profile claim you are Arminian. If you can't come to the table honestly then why should you think anyone should have any dealings with you? Disagreement is permitted, but not unethical doublespeak. As for liberty to the number of saved, don't hold me to the exact number other than what would minimally and comfortably fit 1379 x 1379 miles for the New City. I have taken no liberty with the word of God. All flows as the previous writers of the NT each added new books to the Bible based on previous revelation and new revelation that agrees.

Quote:

Repent of your hyper-Arminianism. Repent of your hyper-dispensationalism.

Believing in the gospel that you need to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated is not hyper but the simple gospel given in John chapter 3 and 1 Cor. 15. Why be offended by the simplicity of that? We are in the dispensation of grace, the mystery age of the Church in Rev. 2 & 3, so what's hyper about that? You are like Satan the great false accuser. The veil is now rent and the grace of the Holy Spirit to indwell believers is happening.

Quote:

Repent of your false claim to be apostles. True apostles had to have been witness to the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 9:1).

Because you reject the Apostles are for today, you reject the Apostles even myself. But I know God has commissioned me as such and the Apostles are workers for the Church now. Hence this site to do this work. 1 Cor. 9.1 doesn't say you have to see Jesus resurrected to be an Apostle, but Paul certainly did see Jesus resurrected. Some have seen Jesus resurrected and still reject Him. This is called blaspheming the Holy Spirit for which there is no recovery, for when Jesus is on earth and a person still reject Him in person, they become irredeemable. If you would like to understand this, read here,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/unpardonablesin.htm

Junia was an Apostle, a female, and a notable Apostle at that among the Apostles. Paul said there were the "other Apostles" not counted among the 12: "then of all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7). It's these little facts that make me know you are on the wrong course.

There were second generation Apostles. Don't confuse the Apostolic generation, the first Apostles who were eyewitnesses, with the subsequent generations of Apostles. Here are some more points about the Apostles for Today,

http://biblocality.com/forums/faq.ph...faq_question18

Some other Apostles not among the Twelve: (a) Barnabas (Acts 14:14) — "the apostles Barnabas and Paul"; (b) Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1 with 2:6); (c) Ephesians 4:8,11 are relevant — 4:8 "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.... [vs. 11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Various unnamed apostles (and the other three workers as gifts for the Church) were given after Jesus' ascension back to heaven; (d) "The Didache" contained instructions on how to distinguish between false and true apostles; (e) "Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles" (Rev. 2.2). This verse wouldn't make much sense if there were no longer any Apostles setting up the churches.

"Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ" (Eph. 4.11-13)

Quote:

Repent of your schismatic desire to start your own denomination because you think there are too many denominations already. How’s that working out for you anyway? How many “biblical localities” have you started since 2004? According to your Meeting Place Finder, the answer is zero.

I don't want my own denomination. I simply recognize and test anyone who says she or he is an Apostle with these questions as the Bible says to do (37 questions in all). I recognize the Apostles for the region of churches I live in as well as the Elder of my church locality. This is proper authority and submission. Watchman Nee got it right. You got it wrong. This is my work and testimony to defend this fact in God's word. Every city on the planet is a biblical locality. Each has or should have an Elder(s) of that locality as well as Apostles for the region of churches to which it belongs. Let us stand on this ground, but this is ground you can't stand on because you are not even a child of God since you are a Calvinist. That makes me sad for you.

Perhaps one day a helpful program like a Meeting Place Finder can be built or established to aid in this process. At least appreciate there is no Archdiocese of United States or Africa as the Roman Church would have you believe in the kingdom of heaven, let alone a Pope of the planet. Why do so many denominations have their own Pope? Sure this is not God's will. God prevents this to maintain humility in the Church that there be no overarching leader. Christ is the Head. Why kick against the goads what is so obvious?

Watchman Nee was a big defender of Arminian so I am going to have side with him and not with you. He found Calvinism revolting.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/neeosasarminian.htm

Quote:

I’m done with this forum. Its dead anyway. Don't bother banning me, I'm dusting off my feet of this heretical, schismatic, Christ-contradicting place.

You should not be surprised by a forum that is a little flock for the body of Christ. Still it's on page 4 in Google searches for "Christian forums". So lots of people are reading if not participating actively. And that's ok. Mission accomplished to get that word out!

You are a heretic, schismatic and Christ contradicting in your heart. I have documented that fact here precisely about you and your hostility. I was going to ban you anyway again for a couple weeks like before because of contradicting your profile, but since you would rather be removed I am happy to oblige.

Praise the Lord for this discernment.