John Wesley's theology

[neo-x]

DannyM » Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:55 pm

neo-x wrote:
It has nothing to do with my liking, bro. The scripture has to be consistent with the rest of itself or else the interpretation is in question, brother. You would have to show that what is written in John 10 be also true at other places. Else it is a matter of proof reading.

I would like to hear your opinion on the scriptures I quoted.

It has everything to do with your disliking, bro. You asked for the scripture, and I gave you the scripture. The scriptures are perfectly consistent. I'll get to your post in due course, bro, and I'd also like you to respond to things left, like Jesus being the propitiation for our sins, and the implications of how you are reading 1 John 2:2. You've walked past that one, brother. Also, the big arguments back in the thread from August and myself have been left untouched. It has been shown quite clearly that Jesus did not die for all men everywhere. So forgive me, my dear brother, if I don't rush to every new argument while the old arguments go untouched.

Dear bro, I have responded quite a lot and that which has been not addressed, will be done soon. Though I must say jumping to new arguments is something inevitable. By the way I am seeing some jumping as well from your side . I have given you ample scripture besides 1 John 2:2, you can show me how that fits within Calvinism without redefining the terms.

It has been shown quite clearly that Jesus did not die for all men everywhere.

Where was it clearly shown? I have yet to see that ...on the contrary I gave you enough scripture, which says otherwise, to write on it and piece it together to prove your point. Up till now I see a refusal to agree, which is fine, but no rebuttals.

There are contradictions, not consistency. The verses I quoted (besides 1 John 2:2 which still needs to be addressed) speak of the world, all men. Calvinism says Christ died for the elect and man cannot come to God without effectual grace. I have even quoted scripture regarding that. So Bro, you are welcome to show me how you can explain those verses and form an argument for Calvinism and not against it as they currently suggest.

Peace bro

On 1 John 2:2 see my post in response to what PL wrote http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 10#p110123

[DannyM]

Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Here Jesus is talking about the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Nowhere does it say that Jesus does not have Gentile sheep. Of course, elsewhere Jesus makes it abundantly clear that He came for His scattered sheep, not just of Israel:

John 11:51-52
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,

52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

Brother, regarding John 12, let‘s look at the context:

John 12:18 -19
The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign.

19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

Firstly, by way of a bonus point, would you say that “world” here means all men everywhere?

John 12:20-26
Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks.

21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.”

22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.

23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honour him.

Jesus is sought after by Greeks. This directly prompts the following teaching of Jesus. The arrival of these non-Jews prompts Jesus’ words, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”

John 12:27-36
“Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.

28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”

29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.”

30 Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not mine.

31 Now is the judgement of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

34 So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”

35 So Jesus said to them, “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going.

36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”

So in the context, brother, we see Jesus drawing all kinds of men, Jew and Gentile.

John 12:37-40
When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. 37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,

38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”

But some still did not believe, brother. How is this? We know that those who are drawn believe and will never be forsaken. Here we have further proof that the text cannot mean all men everywhere head for head.

And what does Isaiah say? They are blinded, brother. The are not drawn by the Lord.

I’ll return to your other texts later, but you can be sure that none of them necessitate a general ransom theory. And at least two of the texts have been addressed further back in the thread.

In Christ

[DannyM]

Dear bro, I have responded quite a lot and that which has been not addressed, will be done soon. Though I must say jumping to new arguments is something inevitable. By the way I am seeing some jumping as well from your side . I have given you ample scripture besides 1 John 2:2, you can show me how that fits within Calvinism without redefining the terms.

You are correct, brother. You have responded to lots. Your ample scriptures are not new to the debate, and none of them demand a general ransom theory. You’ll also find that some of them have already been answered.

Where was it clearly shown? I have yet to see that ...on the contrary I gave you enough scripture, which says otherwise, to write on it and piece it together to prove your point. Up till now I see a refusal to agree, which is fine, but no rebuttals.

You yourself have been shown that Jesus did not die for all men everywhere. Yet you refuse to accept the scripture, calling them isolated cases. Brother, one isolated case blows your whole argument out of the water. But we have much more than one isolated case.

There are contradictions, not consistency. The verses I quoted (besides 1 John 2:2 which still needs to be addressed) speak of the world, all men. Calvinism says Christ died for the elect and man cannot come to God without effectual grace. I have even quoted scripture regarding that. So Bro, you are welcome to show me how you can explain those verses and form an argument for Calvinism and not against it as they currently suggest.

Brother, if I may tentatively suggest, you are not taking into account the context of the passages you are quoting. Once you do that, all else follows.

For now I am off to do my Christmas shopping.

[neo-x]

For now I am off to do my Christmas shopping.

Which reminds me, I haven't done any...

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Not all Arminians believe that, PL. Just like not all Calvinists, are hyper-Calvinists.


Rick, I'm not going to debate what the definition of an Arminian is. We have over 400 years of writing that tells us what Arminians believe. If you want to start redefining terms, you will cause more confusion that there already is.

PL, one request I got from August, was to get information about Calvinism, from a Calvinist website. I just ask that you do the same with Arminianism. I have read enough Arminian sites to know that many Arminians believe in eternal security. I'm not redefining any terms. I'm going by their own sites. I'm not judging what Arminians believe, by what Calvinists say they believe. I wouldn't judge what Calvinists believe, by what Arminians say Calvinists believe.

PL, you said, about what you called "freewill salvation":

Whatever it means, it clearly opposes Scripture. Over and over again, we are told that it is not the result of human will. I don't get why people still insist that it is.

And you made a statement :"I don't get why people still insist that it is." So I was replying to your statement, with my guess, to why people believe, and justify unbiblical beliefs here:

Maybe for the same reason people still insist that God damns people to hell. Some People want to believe things to justify something that they don't want to deal with in their own lives. For example, Joe Blow chooses to believe in the God of Calvinism, who hates certain people, so that Joe Blow's hate of someone that hurt him terribly, can be justified.

And, you responded with this:

Let's see: A Red Herring, a Non Sequitur, and an Argumentum ad misericordiam all in one breath. I'm glad you aren't on my debate team.

You are insulting the way I "debated" in my answer. But, I wasn't even debating anything, PL. So, please don't insult my lack of debating skills. Obviously, my debating skills aren't up to par with yours, because I haven't honed them over years of defending an errant theology, as you have.

Instead of attacking my debating skills, why don't you or Danny address this: Is a belief in the god of Calvinism, who has righteous hate of certain people, used by someone, holding to Calvinism, to justify hate that the person has for someone who has terribly hurt him? Perhaps, someone who abused him as a child? Or, to justify hate one has of a father who ran out on him? So, instead of dealing with the hate someone has towards one who hurt him, he justifies his hate, instead.

[puritan lad]

B.W.,

I have addressed these issues, but since there are so many posts here, I will do so again.

I defined free will in my post on the top of page 9 of this thread.

2-Free Will: The freedom to choose, We are always free to choose what we want. We are not, however, free to change our own natures, and our wills are slave to our natures. As a result, one must be born of the Spirit before he can choose God. And one born of the spirit will choose the kingdom of God. The rest are slaves to sin, and can do nothing to become "born again".

In the context of the passage that you and Rick had offered concerning partiality, we are told that God is not partial concerning race (Jew and Gentile - a good lesson for dispensationalists to learn). He does, however, show favor to some and not others throughout the Scriptures. (Sheep and goats, wheat and tares, children of God vs. children of the devil, etc.) Even in your own theology, God is partial to those who have faith (though I am curious where you think faith comes from). Was God being partial when he chose Israel out of all other nations? When he chose Isaac over Ishmael, when he loved Jacob and hated Esau? Was he being partial when He revealed the things of His kingdom to his disciples and hid them from the pharisees? Was he being partial when he prayed for the disciples, and refused to pray for the world? Is he being "unjust" when he says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"? God does select unconditionally (impartially), not being swayed by works, race, wealth, appearance, or social status, but he does select.

In regards to fairness. if God were just and fair, and only that, then no one would be saved. Mercy is the opposite of justice. It wasn't fair that He killed His own Son for your and my behalf, but I'm sure we are both glad he did.

I would also add that the very fact that these types of questions are being asked about my view of justification tells me that it must align pretty close to Paul's view, since he addressed the very same questions in Romans 9:14 and Romans 9:19. I must ask if your view would ever prompt similar questions.

Let me ask you, since I can't get a straight answer from jlay. Can the beast of Revelation be saved, or he is predestined to hell? If the former, is the prophecy in Revelation false? If the latter, is God being partial? The question is for anyone who denies that God predestines men to Hell to tackle. Rick? Phillip? We need an answer. (or a detailed explanation of why my question is a logical fallacy.)

[puritan lad]

Instead of attacking my debating skills, why don't you or Danny address this: Is a belief in the god of Calvinism, who has righteous hate of certain people, used by someone, holding to Calvinism, to justify hate that the person has for someone who has terribly hurt him? Perhaps, someone who abused him as a child? Or, to justify hate one has of a father who ran out on him? So, instead of dealing with the hate someone has towards one who hurt him, he justifies his hate, instead.

Sure Rick. The answer is "no".

[jlay]

Just a little of Calvin's own commentary. How Calvanists was Calvin?

On Isaiah 53:12--"I approve of the ordinary reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that many sometimes denotes all."

On Mark 14:24 – "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race."

On Matthew 20:28–"‘Many’ is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number, in that He sets Himself over against all others. And this is its meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race."

On John 1:29 – "And when he says the sin OF THE WORLD, He extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race....all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God and need to be reconciled to Him....Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by...faith."

On John 3:16 – "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers....He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ."

On Romans 5:18 – "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all (i.e. in the experience); for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

On Galatians 5:12 – "It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."

On Colossians 1:15–"This redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated."

On Hebrews 5:9–"He (the writer of Hebrews) has inserted the universal term ‘to all’ to show that no one is excluded from this salvation who proves to be attentive and obedient to the Gospel of Christ."

[puritan lad]

Rick,

Here are the 5 points presented by the Remonstrance at the Synod of Ddort. Note well #5:

1.) election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
2.) the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was efficacious only for the man of faith;
3.) unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
4.) grace is not irresistible; and
5.) believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

This is Arminianism. There are those who may well call themselves Arminians who reject any of these, just as there are professing Christians who deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably isn't a lion.

[Canuckster1127]

Is that solely how those calling themselves Arminians present their positions PL? Why should we accept your definition and narrowing of scope as definitive in that regard and not how those themselves holding to Arminianism represent it?

[puritan lad]

Is that solely how those calling themselves Arminians present their positions PL? Why should we accept your definition and narrowing of scope as definitive in that regard and not how those themselves holding to Arminianism represent it?

Like I said, once we start redefining terms, we have more confusion than we already have. For most of history, Arminianism has been defined as how I defined it. (Just like there are no real "4-point" Calvninists).

Besides, I spent most of my life in Arminian churches, and they all still hold that one can fall from grace. (You can check the Assemblies of God, Nazarene, Most Pentecostal, and Most Southern Baptist sites.) Those who don't are a minority (and by the historically established definition, not true Arminians). Once we reject established definitions, the terms "Arminian" and "Calvinist" become useless.

[Canuckster1127]

Is that solely how those calling themselves Arminians present their positions PL? Why should we accept your definition and narrowing of scope as definitive in that regard and not how those themselves holding to Arminianism represent it?

Like I said, once we start redefining terms, we have more confusion than we already have. For most of history, Arminianism has been defined as how I defined it. (Just like there are no real "4-point" Calvninists).

Besides, I spent most of my life in Arminian churches, and they all still hold that one can fall from grace. (You can check the Assemblies of God, Nazarene, Most Pentecostal, and Most Southern Baptist sites.) Those who don't are a minority (and by the historically established definition, not true Arminians). Once we reject established definitions, the terms "Arminian" and "Calvinist" become useless.

That may be true to some extent. Once we begin to establish what other people believe and cease to listen to them define themselves then we're reduced to debating stereotypes and it becomes an exercise in who can prop their strawman up and dismantle it the quickest. Calvinism is more than the TULIP. I suspect Arminianism can have the same said of what you've cited here.

[puritan lad]

Certainly, I'm not trying to establish what Rick believes. I'll let him speak for himself, and can only debate what he says he believes. But if he holds that any points of Arminianism (as defined by the Arminians at the Remonstrance) aren't true, then he is, by definition, not an Arminian. He may well hold to the Arminian view of election (though he appears to go even beyond that into Pelagianism, ie. "anyone can do it"), but that doesn't make him an Arminian.

I'm reminded of my early days when people found out that I was a Christian, they asked me if I was one of those "born-again Bible-believing" types. Once we can establish that this is the only type that there is, discussions become much simpler.

[PaulSacramento]

I wanted to get an "outsider" view on predestination and the elect, so I asked an atheist friend of mine and a Jewish friend of mine to take a look at this thread and hare their thoughts.
You can well imagine, LOL !
The atheist basically said that IF there was a God and he elected some people for eternal damnation even before they were born that this God is far less moral than any imperfect human since he knows of no human that would condem anyone ( much less their "child") before they are even born.
The Jewish person asked me if I wanted to convert !
He mentioned that the God Of Abraham was far less cruel than this God that condemns those that have not even born to do something worth condemning.
I think he was serious about the conversion thing too...
Anyways, it was very interesting to hear their views on this.
I am gonna ask a muslim friend of mine to take a look too.

Sorry if I am not impressed with what non-Christians think.

For your Jewish friend, what about all the nations outside of Israel in the OT? Did God create them or not? Was it His intent to create them from before creation or not? I fail to see his point.

It gives us a perspective of how our doctrines are viewed by others, they whole "stumbling block" thing that Christ so WARNED us against.

[PaulSacramento]

In addition, did you atheist friend manage to justify the moral standard by which he would judge God?

Well, I don't think that I want to get into a moral argument defending preordaining people to eternal hell before they were even born.