civic
Well-known member
Amen
Arminian perspective on Gods Sovereignty and mans free will
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
TibiasDad
Well-known member
John 3:17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
John 3:17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ’ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ.
John 12:47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:47 καὶ ἐάν τίς μου ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ μὴ φυλάξῃ, ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω αὐτόν· οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον ἵνα κρίνω τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ’ ἵνα σώσω τὸν κόσμον.
According to Biblehub, though the verb form is different, both judge and save are Aorist, subjunctive, active voice verbs. And the literal translation is identical to John 3:17.
Doug
civic
Well-known member
This is just another classic case where the doctrines of man take precedence over the truth found in scripture. As @sethproton use to say when I was a Calvinist it’s a stronghold. He was right too.
So did He save the world or didn't He? Is He trying His best?
Good. Then there is no might in either text and hence the translators did not put it there. You obviously should have been invited to the translation committees.
There is no might do anything. My Saviour actually saves all He intends to save without fail. He "will save His people from their sins". Your trying His best God is not the God of the Bible.
brightfame52
Well-known member
I would say they are the same world. The word might in Jn 3:17 doesnt denote possibility as that poster states, for that's false, but it denotes a stated purpose, its hina: a conjunction:
- that, in order that, so that in order that (denoting the purpose or the result):
So that world shall be saved according to Gods purpose, thats the end result of Christ being sent.
The same word mightis used here to denote purpose of result Matt 1:21-22
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying
The word fulfilled is also subjunctive, yet was it ever a possibility that this would not be fulfilled, this purpose of God ? NO
Neither this world Jn 3:17
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Also the words "might be saved" this is a passive voice, the world here doesnt do anything to be saved, but it receives salvation through Christ doing all. Its simply the world of Gos elect, men and women from all nations.
His God is a god of possibility. With my God "no purpose of His can be thwarted". If He intended to save all, all would be saved.
Was he right to you back then? LOL I bet not.
Doesn't Christ say to merely think about adultery that you have already committed it in your heart?
1)" The world is saved by Christ" Universalism
2)" And those saved become elect", nowhere does scripture say anything about becoming elect.
3) "God chooses to save all who believe", He choses to save those He has granted belief. Belief, faith, and repentance are a means to a end.
brightfame52
Well-known member
Correct Isa 14 24,27
The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?
Isa 46 11
Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
Eph 1 11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
TibiasDad
Well-known member
To be tempted in itself is not to sin. To entertain that temptation is the effect of being sinful in nature. That is not to sin, per se, but is evidence of the bondage to sin. That is the point of Jesus’s words in Matthew 15. The nature of sin is not the act of sinning.
This said, you did not address the question posed. “Would not the motivation to not do it be stronger at that moment?”
Doug
The nature of sin is affront to God. Hence to look upon on women with lust in your heart even if you never touch her. God looks upon the heart.
Your calling me out for not answering questions? That's rich. You never did answer as to has God always known the number of the elect. Did Christ know you would exist on the cross?
Maybe. Depends on the circumstances.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Yes, but it is not an act of sin.
To lust is an act of the mind to imagine sexual activity. That is a sinful action.
Fair enough; God knows everything, period! Your question is rhetorical!
Your theology is anchored by the presumption that we act based on our strongest desire. If I choose not to sin, then that is the stronger motivation, the stronger desire.
Doug
God looks upon the heart.
The source of lust is your heart, not your mind. That is where it originates from.
We have a infestation of Open Theists. Just checking
Exactly. At the moment you choose you choose your greatest desire.
Those who acknowledge that the Cross was predetermined (Rom 9), are they "open theists" by your definition/standards?
I would say they are inconsistent. The future is open but it's not crowd.
So what would you call someone who believes in personal free choice and believes in the fact that the Cross was predetermined? I would call him a Synergist. What would you call him?
A Compatibilist
civic
Well-known member
In the Bible the heart is considered the seat of life or strength. Hence, it means mind, soul, spirit, or one's entire emotional nature and understanding.
Thus, it can be concluded that the words "heart" and "mind" are often used interchangeably or synonymously in the New Testament
Good. Them my point stands. Thanks
