Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[JM]

Hi my Arminian friends! I was just wondering, why are you an Arminian? Have you considered the historic position of Bible believing Christians and perhaps, considered that your position is a form of humanism? Was the Arminianism you profess a tradition like Dispensationalism and the PreTrib Rapture?

Thanks,

jm

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Great post,

I'm not Arminian, but looking forward to this.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

I Just realized this!

The Arminian conception of gospel preaching is weak, because it depends on the preacher's personal ability and strength. - Therefore: People must hear to believe, so that must be contingent upon the preachers personality, ability, strength, voice tone, eloquence etc. - That obviously can not be the case!

The Calvinist, on the other hand, knows that God's Word will never fail to accomplish all that God desires it to accomplish.

"So will My Word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." Is. 55:11

 

[98cwitr]

Hence why you have these megachurches with eloquent public speakers as their pastors. They don't have to be led by the Spirit...they only have to be good at convincing you of how good you are and should feel about yourself.

 

[mikedsjr]

Is life application contextualization a result of Arminianism? If so, then I am not a very good friend within a bible study. There are either two things will happen. I'm completely silent and end up reading the Bible ignoring the bible study. Or I speak up and completely derail the class from attempting to do life application.

For instance, the focus this past week in Sunday School was Israelites and the Egyptians about to destroy them, but God had Moses raise his arms and split the waters for them to walk through. Instead of this being focused as a demonstration of Jesus saving us from our sins, the teacher question at, "What is your Egyptians in your life you need saving from?"

That's a stupid interpretation.

 

[royal priest]

Is life application contextualization a result of Arminianism? If so, then I am not a very good friend within a bible study. There are either two things will happen. I'm completely silent and end up reading the Bible ignoring the bible study. Or I speak up and completely derail the class from attempting to do life application.

For instance, the focus this past week in Sunday School was Israelites and the Egyptians about to destroy them, but God had Moses raise his arms and split the waters for them to walk through. Instead of this being focused as a demonstration of Jesus saving us from our sins, the teacher question at, "What is your Egyptians in your life you need saving from?"

That's a stupid interpretation.

May God give you the graces of patience and wisdom to be a brightly burning light in that place! I have a friend who did not attend church for years because of a lack of like-mindedness. But I convinced him to join the better of lesser evils(so to speak) and he and his wife are actually having a positive influence upon the ministry there!

 

[Leevo]

Hi my Arminian friends! I was just wondering, why are you an Arminian? Have you considered the historic position of Bible believing Christians and perhaps, considered that your position is a form of humanism? Was the Arminianism you profess a tradition like Dispensationalism and the PreTrib Rapture?

Thanks,

jm

Love it! The mockery is grand! Thanks!

To answer the question though, I am Arminian because to me, the actual theology behind it properly reconciles the multitude of verses that deal with putting our faith in Christ and election. (Yes, Arminians hold a view of election... gasp!)

 

[JM]

Sorry, not mockery but a spin off. I should know better, spin offs rarely work. Joey (Friends), Baywatch Nights (Baywatch), etc.

Yes Arminians do hold to a view of election but due to lack of confessionalism it's difficult to define. Will you give us your definition plz? Thank you.

 

[Leevo]

Sorry, not mockery but a spin off. I should know better, spin offs rarely work. Joey (Friends), Baywatch Nights (Baywatch), etc.

Yes Arminians do hold to a view of election but due to lack of confessionalism it's difficult to define. Will you give us your definition plz? Thank you.

I hold to what is called "Conditional Election" that God chose to elect those he foreknew would believe. Election is conditional upon faith in Christ.

 

[JM]

I hold to what is called "Conditional Election" that God chose to elect those he foreknew would believe. Election is conditional upon faith in Christ.

Ok, so you believe God foreknew who WOULD NOT believe and created them anyway...knowing they were being created for hell.

You wrote that, "God chose to elect those he foreknew would believe" so the opposite would be true. God would also foreknow who would NOT believe BUT God created them anyway knowing their final destination would be everlasting torment.

Gotcha.

 

[98cwitr]

Ok, so you believe God foreknew who WOULD NOT believe and created them anyway...knowing they were being created for hell.

You wrote that, "God chose to elect those he foreknew would believe" so the opposite would be true. God would also foreknow who would NOT believe BUT God created them anyway knowing their final destination would be everlasting torment.

Gotcha.

Not my quote but wanted to respond:

I do believe that very thing, yes, but the way the statements are proposed, it could be that faith is self-manifested, which I don't believe it is. Faith is from God.

 

[JM]

What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe

 

[kangaroodort]

Hi my Arminian friends! I was just wondering, why are you an Arminian? Have you considered the historic position of Bible believing Christians and perhaps, considered that your position is a form of humanism? Was the Arminianism you profess a tradition like Dispensationalism and the PreTrib Rapture?

Thanks,

jm

Arminianism has a far greater historic precedent in Christianity than Calvinism. The basic tenets of Calvinism essentially began with the later writings of Augustine and was later expanded on and systematized by Calvin. When it comes to the Calvinist doctrine of inevitable perseverance, that started with Calvin (even Augustine held that true regenerate believers could fall away and perish if God did not give them the "gift" of perseverance).

The early church Fathers prior to Augustine (esp. the ante-Nicene fathers) were essentially of one vice in opposition to every feature that would eventually become known as Calvinism. They opposed determinism and affirmed free will in the libertarian sense. They affirmed the possibility of apostasy from genuine faith. They affirmed God's desire to save all and the universal nature of the atonement. They rejected irresistible grace and unconditional election. They either held to a corporate election or an election by foreknowledge. In fact, the only ones who held to theological features that were similar to what Calvinist proclaims today were the Gnostic sects. And the early church Fathers used many of the same arguments against these sects as Arminians use today against Calvinism. So if anything, Calvinism is the historic innovation, not Arminianism.

For more on that, see here: http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Church_History_and_Calvinism.pdf

 

[kangaroodort]

I Just realized this!

The Arminian conception of gospel preaching is weak, because it depends on the preacher's personal ability and strength. - Therefore: People must hear to believe, so that must be contingent upon the preachers personality, ability, strength, voice tone, eloquence etc. - That obviously can not be the case!

The Calvinist, on the other hand, knows that God's Word will never fail to accomplish all that God desires it to accomplish.

"So will My Word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." Is. 55:11

Strange then that Calvinists so often decry the way Arminians or non-Calvinist present the Gospel, as if it matters or something.

 

[twin1954]

Strange then that Calvinists so often decry the way Arminians or non-Calvinist present the Gospel, as if it matters or something.

Where is the good news in telling dead sinners that they can be saved if they do something that they cannot do? It would be like preaching in a graveyard.

 

[kangaroodort]

Where is the good news in telling dead sinners that they can be saved if they do something that they cannot do? It would be like preaching in a graveyard.

Because God enables dead sinners to do so. The Biblical references to being dead in sins have nothing to do with the inability of a physical corpse to do things. That is a Calvinist invention imposed on those texts. If that was the case then those who are dead in sin could not sin or reject the Gospel or resist the Holy Spirit (all spiritual acts). Corpses don't sin and they don't resist or reject things anymore than they hear things.

Those passages have to do with being separated from the source of spiritual life, which is God. The solution is to be joined again to that source of spiritual life, and we are joined to Christ through faith (Eph. 1:13), just as it is through faith that we receive the Spirit of life (Gal. 3:2, 5, 14). We are raised to new life through faith (Col. 2:12). And notice the "in Christ" and "in Him" language that dominates that passage, because it is in Christ that we experience new life, and again we come to be joined to Christ and receive His Spirit through faith. And notice that in Col. 2:13 we who were formerly "dead in sin" are made alive "together with Him." Again, new life comes to us only through union with Christ, which is, you guessed it: through faith.

And it is interesting that you would suggest that those who are dead in sin cannot hear unless first given life when Jesus says exactly the opposite in John 5. For more on that see here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/

I like the way A.W. Tozer puts it: "Because the Bible teaches about sinners being dead, some therefore claim that a person is dead. He is unable to think, to help himself, to reason or to want to do right. He cannot make up his mind to do right or repent. He is unable to do anything until he has been regenerated by a sovereign arbitrary act of God. Then he repents, believes and turns to God only after he has been regenerated. That is taking the passage of Scripture “dead in sin” and making it simply ridiculous." (Tozer, Experiencing the Presence of God)

 

[kangaroodort]

Ok, so you believe God foreknew who WOULD NOT believe and created them anyway...knowing they were being created for hell.

You wrote that, "God chose to elect those he foreknew would believe" so the opposite would be true. God would also foreknow who would NOT believe BUT God created them anyway knowing their final destination would be everlasting torment.

Gotcha.

I don't hold to the "foreseen faith" view of election (though I do hold that God foreknows all things, just that foreknowledge is not the basis of election), but this reasoning of yours is based on some pretty seriously unfounded assumptions.

It is based on the assumption that God can have foreknowledge of what a person would freely choose with regards to the Gospel and then "not create" that person based on that foreknowledge. But then there would never exist such a person to know anything about and God's foreknowledge of that person and the free will act of that person would then be falsified. Do you think God can falsify His foreknowledge? Do you think God can be wrong?

I think you need to start by demonstrating (not just asserting) that God can "not create" someone based on what He foreknows about that person's future existence and the future free choices they will make, when there will never be such a person to know anything about or to make any choices at all.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Corpses don't sin and they don't resist or reject things anymore than they hear things.

I tend to look at it like this:
a) We are slaves to sin
b) Unless we are regenerated, we can not see or understand the things of God

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

I don't hold to the "foreseen faith" view of election (though I do hold that God foreknows all things, just that foreknowledge is not the basis of election), but this reasoning of yours is based on some pretty seriously unfounded assumptions.

It is based on the assumption that God can have foreknowledge of what a person would freely choose with regards to the Gospel and then "not create" that person based on that foreknowledge. But then there would never exist such a person to know anything about and God's foreknowledge of that person and the free will act of that person would then be falsified. Do you think God can falsify His foreknowledge? Do you think God can be wrong?

I think you need to start by demonstrating (not just asserting) that God can "not create" someone based on what He foreknows about that person's future existence and the future free choices they will make, when there will never be such a person to know anything about or to make any choices at all.

I dont understand what your saying here, my arminian friend, can you explain more simpler

 

[kangaroodort]

I tend to look at it like this:
a) We are slaves to sin
b) Unless we are regenerated, we can not see or understand the things of God

But that is not Scripturally accurate because that is not what "dead in sin" means, as I demonstrated above.