Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[JM]

Nobody got heated as far as I know, so I am not sure where you getting your ideas from. If you are getting angry, then you should definitely step aside. I will be happy to keep correcting your revisionist history, misrepresentations and misuse of Scripture while you are gone. God bless.

Only in the kangaroo court is your above statements accurate.

 

[JM]

I don't need to get around it and I already addressed this many times, just as I demonstrated that the whole "save yourself" claim is a canard. Yet it keeps getting repeated. Feel free to go back and refresh your memory.

You have not demonstrated anything. Less than 200 posts, all arguing against Calvinism and making false claims about being misrepresented. You are living in a tower of invincible ignorance.

 

[kangaroodort]

Any student of history knows that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers did not agree on several things. But what they did agree on was that the Scriptures were the only true source of all doctrine. And while they did start out seeking to reform the Roman church it soon became obvious that the Roman church would not bow to the Scriptures.

I agree, but that does not change the fact that Luther appealed to what pagans and heathens believed in order to support his view of determinism. Why not appeal to the early church? Because the early church opposed the determinism of the pagans and Gnostics and argued strongly for a libertarian view of free will.

What they brought out was not a system of doctrine necessarily but a return to the teaching of the Scriptures. What we call Calvinism is nothing more than what Paul taught very clearly as did the Lord and the rest of the Apostles.

But that is just an assertion on your part (and Calvinism is heavily systematic). Obviously, all non-Calvinists disagree, just as many Reformers rejected Calvin's ideas, and just as Luther rejected inevitable perseverance and limited atonement. If they were all just getting back to what the Apostles clearly taught, why did they disagree so much? And if they were just getting back to what the Apostles taught, then how did the earliest church writers get it so wrong so fast? As that article I referenced says so well:

Although the Calvinist author above [Loraine Boettner] intended to say that Augustine discovered a lost teaching of the apostles, his words serve to confirm that (1) unconditional election first emerged in the church about 400 years later than the apostles (2) that unconditional election can be traced to a single influential individual (Augustine), and that (3) unconditional election went “far beyond” the teachings of all those who went before. His words should also prompt one to ask, “How did free will become the universal teaching of the church for the first 400 years, in the first place?” Indeed, what would it take for “free will” to overcome the alleged lost teaching of unconditional election so that free will became the universal teaching of the church for 400 years? And where is the evidence that something like that even happened? What, for example, are the names of the champions of unconditional election (before Augustine) who initially opposed this alleged free will heresy? And who is the leader of the free will movement that caused unconditional election to become lost for 400 years? Why is it one can not find any single individual to blame for the teaching of free will in the church? And why is it one can only find an entire church that teaches free will? And why is it that even Augustine himself taught free will from the time of his conversion until the time he “discovered” his new teaching? And why is it that Augustine, “discovered” this lost teaching alone in his private study, with no sects there already holding out for a return to unconditional election long before Augustine began his study? In short, there is no historical evidence that unconditional election was ever taught before Augustine! There is only evidence that it started with Augustine. The only “proof” that unconditional election was lost by the church for four centuries and then found by Augustine, if it can be called proof, is Augustine’s own newly discovered interpretation of scripture! And that is not “proof” since every passage in question is capable of a conditional, free will, interpretation.

_________________

The evidence suggests that most of the Reformation was a return to Augustine, not to the Apostles. Both Luther (an Augustinian Monk) and Calvin (who thought the world of Augustine) relied heavily on Augustine's writings and interpretation of Scripture in developing their doctrines. That is just plain historical fact.

In fact it wasn't even called Calvinism until well after the death of John Calvin. I use the label only for reference and so that I do not have to go through the Doctrines of Grace every time I write something here.

I am not sure how that is relevant.

Now that I have taken the time to read through what you wrote your purpose was very clear even with the caveat. It was just as I suspected and your use of Luther's statements were dishonest and taken out of their context.

Based on what, your own personal opinion? It is certainly not based on my words.

Moreover your use of the early church was without any support except one writer, whom few have heard of, who happens to seem very Pelagian in his thinking. I will have to look it up but wasn't the 3rd century about the time Augustine was destroying Pelagius' views?

Methodius was writing about 40 years or more before Augustine was born. And he is just one voice among many in affirming free will and rejecting determinism (going back the very earliest Christian writers, some of whom were taught by the Apostles, or were taught by those who were taught by the Apostles). I gave several sources either in this thread or the other one, but you would have to follow links and read them in order to see that. You will not find determinism in the early Christian writings. Even Augustine did not hold to it when he became a Christian (though he probably did as a 9 year member of a Gnostic sect prior to his conversion). Read the book, "Augustine: On Free Choice and the Will" by Hackett to see how strongly Augustine defended libertarian free will in line with all of the church before him. It was only when he over-reacted to Pelagius that his views began to shift. Ausgustine was right to oppose Pelagius and the Pelagians, but he went too far in the other direction to do so, moving towards a strict determinism that Calvin later hardened and systematized.

So why did I mention this about Luther? Again, because it has been suggested here and is often suggested by Calvinists that the historic Christian faith was always in line with Calvinism or monergism, and anything other than Calvinism is just a later "tradition" or deviation from the historic apostolic faith. That is as false as you can get. Note the OP for example:

"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?"

Arminianism has far more in line with what Bible believing Christians have always believed than what Luther or Calvin taught. Like it or not, Calvinism is an innovation in the history of the church, an anomaly that began in the 16th century (and again, not even Luther held to major features of Calvinism). That doesn't mean that it cannot be Biblical. It could be possible that everyone in the church got it wrong until Calvin. But that is a much different thing than suggesting that Calvin was just restoring what the church had always believed (save for the corruptions of the RC church). That suggestion (as it has been stated here more than once) is blatantly false, or as you like to put it: dishonest.

Church history is not a big deal to me until some Calvinist comes along and begins to make false statements about it. That is pretty much the only time I will reference the major lack of historical precedence for anything like Calvinism prior to Calvin or Augustine (though even Augustine rejected key features of what would later become "Calvinism").

 

[kangaroodort]

You have not demonstrated anything. Less than 200 posts, all arguing against Calvinism and making false claims about being misrepresented. You are living in a tower of invincible ignorance.

Nothing more than an assertion on your part, as usual. And strangely, it sounds a little heated or even filled with rage. Maybe you better take a break for a while and regain your composure. Maybe some more memetexting will make you feel better ;-) I am out of time for tonight. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Yes your whole explanation as to why you aren't saving yourself is to say that the Scriptures say that we do not save ourselves. While that is true and according to the Scriptures you have never been able to actually get around the simple conclusion that you do if your theology is correct.

Glad you agree that your argument has no Scriptural merit. And I did more than that anyway. I demonstrated the absurdity of the claim with multiple examples and analogies.

Until you are able to come up with a logical way that you aren't saving yourself, since you did something others didn't do

I already did, more than once. Go back and read my comments again. If I receive a free gift that someone else rejects, it still doesn't mean I earned the gift, bought the gift or gave it to myself. The burden is on you to show how that should be the case, not me. So it is really your thorn, not mine. And maybe you can grapple with this point from a previous comment while you are at it:

"I should also point out again that in Calvinism faith supposedly excludes boasting because God irresistibly causes it in us. But then why couldn't works exclude boasting the same way? God could have just as easily made works the condition for receiving salvation and made it so that we could not boast in it by causing it irresistibly, just as He supposedly irresistibly causes faith. And in traditional Calvinism all things are the result of an irresistible eternal decree anyway. That includes both our faith and works. So the Biblical distinction between faith and works loses meaning in Calvinism and the principle of faith which excludes boasting becomes nonsense in a Calvinist framework. Paul makes it clear that it is the "law" or "principle" of faith that excludes boasting. In other words, faith by its very nature excludes boasting since it is simple trust in God to save us and receives a free and unmerited gift from the hand of God (which is why it is "of grace", cf. Rom. 4:16; 5:1, 2). So in Armnianism, it makes perfect sense why the "law" of faith excludes boasting while works would promote boasting, but not in Calvinism. And if you are still struggling to see why this is the case, maybe Calvinist John Piper can be of some assistance:http://evangelicalarminians.org/john-piper-is-faith-meritorious/

 

[JM]

Nothing more than an assertion on your part, as usual. And strangely, it sounds a little heated or even filled with rage. Maybe you better take a break for a while and regain your composure. Maybe some more memetexting will make you feel better ;-) I am out of time for tonight. God bless.

You're repeating yourself. Arminians tend to do that when faced with scripture and logical argumentation.

 

[JM]

Glad you agree that your argument has no Scriptural merit

Haha, every time someone takes you to school you repeat the same lines.

http://saveyourself.org/john-piper-is-faith-meritorious/

Your link is broken.

I need to apologize for upsetting you. My posts seem to really frustrate you and you keep repeating yourself as if you can refute twin by repetition of already disqualified posts.

You have less than 200 posts and you're arguing in every single one of them. Time to reflect a little on the reasons you hate so, so much.

Yours in the Lord.

 

[kangaroodort]

I need to apologize for upsetting you. My posts seem to really frustrate you

I appreciate the apology, but I am not upset, and as usual your "apology" quickly disintegrates and turns out to be anything but an apology anyway. Your posts do not frustrate me, but they do contain a lot of falsehoods that have needed correcting. It is sad that even when you are corrected, you refuse to own your errors. That would seem to indicate that you care more about putting on a good show than being accurate in what you say. And the things that you keep saying would also seem to indicate that you rarely travel outside of your Calvinist echo chamber. That's too bad. It keeps you from being relevant in these discussions. After all, it is pretty hard to take seriously someone who doesn't even realize that Luther was not a Calvinist.

Your link is broken.

I just clicked it and it worked fine.

you keep repeating yourself as if you can refute twin by repetition of already disqualified posts.

Nope, just pointing twin back to where his comments have already been easily refuted and asking him to address some counter claims that have so far been ignored (just as you ignored it when I countered your weak attempt to rescue your Calvinist ordo salutis from the plain language of Jesus in John 5, etc.). Until twin (or any other Calvinist here) can show that a gift freely received logically means that the person who freely received the gift earned it, bought it, or gave it to himself, the repeated "self-savior" claims amount to nothing more than a vacuous red herring.

You have less than 200 posts and you're arguing in every single one of them. Time to reflect a little on the reasons you hate so, so much.

So "arguing" means "hating" now? And I thought you were above logical fallacies? Apparently not.

 

[mikedsjr]

When you can't win an argument, just make fun of your opponent. Understandable. God bless.

Question for you not related to the rest....I think.

Would you classify different groups as different types of Arminians? Are Pentecostal Arminians different from Methodist Arminians and different from Baptist Arminians and so on? How should I define, in the context given, those who read a Scripture verse and ask "what is the [object from Scripture] in your life?" These questions get under my skin. If they aren't Arminian in nature, what nature are they? Wesleyan? Do you see Wesleyanism as another form of Arminianism?

 

[twin1954]

Glad you agree that your argument has no Scriptural merit.

And you show a lack of respect for your opponent when you take his words and use them to mean something altogether opposite than what he said. Disappointing to say the least. You may have meant it as a joke and that would have been OK but you didn't use a smiley or any other manner of distinguishing it as a joke so I must assume you intended it as an insult. That too is OK as I have been insulted by much better than you in my many discussions and debates. I have a thick skin it doesn't bother me so insult away as you please.

And I did more than that anyway. I demonstrated the absurdity of the claim with multiple examples and analogies.

I know that you think that accepting a gift isn't a work but in truth it must be. We don't choose to receive a gift, that is the prerogative of the giver as He is the one who gives and makes it our possession by His giving the gift to us. It wouldn't be a gift if it were up to us to accept or receive it, it would only be an offer. The very nature of a gift is that the giver bestows it without any conditions to be met.

Once the gift is given we are enabled to receive the giver. The gift is life eternal and the giver is God.

That is why you can't get around the simple fact that if you must receive the gift it is you doing a work and saving yourself by it. As long as there is a condition it is not a gift but an offer which you merit by your acceptance.

Faith too is a gift from God to the chosen sinner and we don't accept faith do we? No we simply believe because we have been given life and faith in Christ. God doesn't believe for us of course but He gifts us faith by gifting us with life. We believe Him because He has given us life in Him not the other way around.

I already did, more than once. Go back and read my comments again. If I receive a free gift that someone else rejects, it still doesn't mean I earned the gift, bought the gift or gave it to myself.

You did something the other did not and that makes you to earn it. If there are any conditions that must be met before you are given life then you earned it by meeting the conditions. If you must do something in order to be saved, no matter how small and seemingly inconsequential it is, you have not only implied that the blood of Christ is not enough for God but that it isn't enough for you. Whatever you do to add to the work of Christ is to pollute it and destroy the power in it.

The burden is on you to show how that should be the case, not me.

I have done so already

So it is really your thorn, not mine.

Not my thorn but certainly yours if you must hang on to your man centered theology.

And maybe you can grapple with this point from a previous comment while you are at it:

"I should also point out again that in Calvinism faith supposedly excludes boasting because God irresistibly causes it in us. But then why couldn't works exclude boasting the same way? God could have just as easily made works the condition for receiving salvation and made it so that we could not boast in it by causing it irresistibly, just as He supposedly irresistibly causes faith. And in traditional Calvinism all things are the result of an irresistible eternal decree anyway. That includes both our faith and works. So the Biblical distinction between faith and works loses meaning in Calvinism and the principle of faith which excludes boasting becomes nonsense in a Calvinist framework. Paul makes it clear that it is the "law" or "principle" of faith that excludes boasting. In other words, faith by its very nature excludes boasting since it is simple trust in God to save us and receives a free and unmerited gift from the hand of God (which is why it is "of grace", cf. Rom. 4:16; 5:1, 2). So in Armnianism, it makes perfect sense why the "law" of faith excludes boasting while works would promote boasting, but not in Calvinism. And if you are still struggling to see why this is the case, maybe Calvinist John Piper can be of some assistance:http://evangelicalarminians.org/john-piper-is-faith-meritorious/

This is utter nonsense. Arminian theology makes boasting to be the one thing that a sinner can do. If Arminian theology is correct then the sinner can stand before God and boast that he did something that poor wretch in Hell didn't do.

In Calvinist theology boasting is excluded because salvation is all the work of God in us and for us. We have no reason to boast or room to boast. The electing love of God is, when properly understood, the most humbling experience the sinner can ever know. He didn't have to save me but He did. He wasn't obligated to love me but He did. He didn't have to give me life and faith but He did. I am no different than the wretch in Hell, perhaps I am worse in myself, but yet He chose to love me and send His precious Son to accomplish my salvation. He didn't have to nor was He obligated to in any way, He could have passed over me just as easily as He did others, but He put my sin on His Son and punished Him for it instead of me. I can think of nothing more humbling that to think on that.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

This is utter nonsense. Arminian theology makes boasting to be the one thing that a sinner can do. If Arminian theology is correct then the sinner can stand before God and boast that he did something that poor wretch in Hell didn't do.

In Calvinist theology boasting is excluded because salvation is all the work of God in us and for us. We have no reason to boast or room to boast. The electing love of God is, when properly understood, the most humbling experience the sinner can ever know. He didn't have to save me but He did. He wasn't obligated to love me but He did. He didn't have to give me life and faith but He did. I am no different than the wretch in Hell, perhaps I am worse in myself, but yet He chose to love me and send His precious Son to accomplish my salvation. He didn't have to nor was He obligated to in any way, He could have passed over me just as easily as He did others, but He put my sin on His Son and punished Him for it instead of me. I can think of nothing more humbling that to think on that.

Wow! True and powerful!

 

[kangaroodort]

Question for you not related to the rest....I think.

Would you classify different groups as different types of Arminians? Are Pentecostal Arminians different from Methodist Arminians and different from Baptist Arminians and so on? How should I define, in the context given, those who read a Scripture verse and ask "what is the [object from Scripture] in your life?" These questions get under my skin. If they aren't Arminian in nature, what nature are they? Wesleyan? Do you see Wesleyanism as another form of Arminianism?

That's an interesting question. For me two main issues make one an Arminian of some sort. The first main issue is seeing grace as resistible and election as conditional. The second main issue is affirming total depravity and the subsequent need for enabling grace to make a faith response to the Gospel possible. If you hold to unconditional election, then you are obviously not Arminian. You are a Calvinist of come sort. If you hold to conditional election and deny total depravity or the need for prevenient enabling grace, you are not an Arminian. You are a non-Calvinist, but not an Arminian.

As far as denominational views, that is a tough one. Pentecostals are typically non-Calvinists, but not all. I would say that the Assemblies of God is basically Arminian as a fellowship, but that fellowship is very congregational, so you can have AG preachers with varying views (and sometimes this just comes from ignorance). But by and large I think most AG ministers are broadly Arminian, though many might be more semi-Pelagian. But that is just one branch of Petecostalism.

Wesley was thoroughly Arminian, but his doctrine of entire sanctification (which is itself often misunderstood by his opponents) was not a necessary feature of Arminius' soteriology (he was open to the possibility though, with the caveat that such would only be possible through the continued enabling of God's grace, which is what Wesley would say too). But Wesley affirmed total depravity, the need for prevenient enabling grace and conditional election. So he was Arminian. Did that answer your question?

 

[kangaroodort]

And you show a lack of respect for your opponent when you take his words and use them to mean something altogether opposite than what he said. Disappointing to say the least. You may have meant it as a joke and that would have been OK but you didn't use a smiley or any other manner of distinguishing it as a joke so I must assume you intended it as an insult. That too is OK as I have been insulted by much better than you in my many discussions and debates. I have a thick skin it doesn't bother me so insult away as you please.

Sorry if you found the rhetoric too much. But it is strange to me that you find this bothersome but don't mind continually referring to my view as "man centered", nor have you rebuked other Calvinists here for making all sorts of crazy claims that focus on supposed motives for holding to Arminianism rather than focusing on the Scriptural issues.

What you said seemed to say that all I had done was appeal to Scripture to make my argument, and as far as that goes, I was correct. That would indicate to me that your argument is more than a Scriptural argument, which is why I made the comment. Sorry if that was insulting or offensive.

I know that you think that accepting a gift isn't a work but in truth it must be. We don't choose to receive a gift, that is the prerogative of the giver as He is the one who gives and makes it our possession by His giving the gift to us.

What? We don't choose to receive a gift? We can't reject a gift? Are you serious? The giver causes us to receive the gift? Really? So if I buy a gift for someone and offer her the gift, it is not up to her whether or not she will receive it, but up to me as the giver? Come on. And this distinction between a gift and offer is contrived. You can't offer someone a gift if there is no gift to offer. What you are saying is that a gift is only a gift if it is received, and apparently, only of it is received irresistibly.

It wouldn't be a gift if it were up to us to accept or receive it, it would only be an offer. The very nature of a gift is that the giver bestows it without any conditions to be met.

Says who? You? Let's say that an "offer" only becomes a "gift" when it is received (even though an "offering" is generally considered a synonym for a gift). That still does not mean it must be received irresistibly or it is not really a gift. And it doesn't mean there can be no condition for receiving the gift. Receiving is a condition. Unless you "receive" it, you don't "get" it. You said unless it is received, it is not even a gift, but only an offer. So even you acknowledge that one must meet the condition of "receiving" in order to get the gift. But how do we receive a gift? That depends on the nature of the gift. It has to do with how we take possession of the gift so that it becomes ours. Taking possession of a gift does not make it not a gift as you seem to claim. In fact, you claimed it is just an offer unless someone takes possession of it.

So on the one hand, you say it is not a gift, but only an offer unless you take possession of what is offered (which is what receiving means). On the other hand, you say that if one needs to take possession of the gift (which is indeed a condition) that means it is not a gift. Well, which is it?

What you are really wanting to say is that an offer cannot be received as a gift unless the offer is irresistible, or that a gift is not really a gift if it is not received irresistibly. But that is just a made up definition.

The free offer of salvation is "received" as a gift by simple trust in the giver. In trusting in Christ, we take possession of the gift. Trusting is a condition for receiving the gift, it is how we receive it.

Taking possession of a gift (however that might be done) does not contribute to the gift. It does not make it not a gift (in fact you said it can only be a gift if someone takes possession of it). It does not mean we gave the gift to ourselves. It does not mean we earned it. Taking possession of a gift (or responding to an offer) is not a meritorious act.

As for Scriptural support, here are just three simple examples from countless passages that make the same basic point:

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Gen. 1:29)

So if we do not eat fruit and plant food, does that mean God did not give it to us for food?

And to Noah he said: "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (Gen. 9:3)

So if we eat only vegetables, does that mean that God did not give us meat to eat? And God said he gave us "everything that lives and moves" for food. So does that mean that if I do not eat some of everything that moves, God didn't really give me everything that lives and moves for food? Do I nullify this gift as a real gift until I eat beetles and grubs?

"Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, most beautiful of all lands— because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols. (Ezek. 20:15-16)

God "gave" them the Promised Land, yet they did not possess it because they failed to meet the required condition for taking possession of the gift. But you said a gift can only be a gift if it is received irresistibly and without conditions. Examples like these could be easily multiplied, but these are enough to demonstrate that your definitions and claims are not derived from Scripture or even in harmony with Scripture, but philosophically contrived.

You did something the other did not and that makes you to earn it. If there are any conditions that must be met before you are given life then you earned it by meeting the conditions.

Again, this is just an assertion on your part, and an assertion that has been debunked over and over again. There is no reason to conflate "meeting a condition" with "earning something." If someone writes me a check for a thousand dollars, I will not take "possession" of the money until I endorse and cash the check. Are you seriously saying that if I need to meet the condition of endorsing and cashing the check in order to take possession of the money, that means I "earned" the thousand dollars" and it was not really a gift at all?

"Hey Mike, where did you get all of that money? I thought you were out of work."

"Oh, I earned it."

"You got a job!"

"Nope, someone just wrote me a check for a thousand dollars."

"But I thought you said you earned it."

"That's because I did."

"How so?"

"Isn't it obvious? First I had to take the check out of his hand when he offered it to me. Then I had to sign the back of the check. Then I had to cash it to get the money. Clearly, after all of that I earned every penny."

"What???"

_____________

"What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3-5)

- I will address the rest of your reply after lunch. God Bless.

 

[JM]

Our faith does not satisfy the Father's wrath toward us due our sin. We are saved by Christ alone through the instrument of faith, this faith is apart of our redemption which is all of God....alone.

 

[twin1954]

Sorry if you found the rhetoric too much. But it is strange to me that you find this bothersome but don't mind continually referring to my view as "man centered", nor have you rebuked other Calvinists here for making all sorts of crazy claims that focus on supposed motives for holding to Arminianism rather than focusing on the Scriptural issues.

What you said seemed to say that all I had done was appeal to Scripture to make my argument, and as far as that goes, I was correct. That would indicate to me that your argument is more than a Scriptural argument, which is why I made the comment. Sorry if that was insulting or offensive.



What? We don't choose to receive a gift? We can't reject a gift? Are you serious? The giver causes us to receive the gift? Really? So if I buy a gift for someone and offer her the gift, it is not up to her whether or not she will receive it, but up to me as the giver? Come on. And this distinction between a gift and offer is contrived. You can't offer someone a gift if there is no gift to offer. What you are saying is that a gift is only a gift if it is received, and apparently, only of it is received irresistibly.



Says who? You? Let's say that an "offer" only becomes a "gift" when it is received (even though an "offering" is generally considered a synonym for a gift). That still does not mean it must be received irresistibly or it is not really a gift. And it doesn't mean there can be no condition for receiving the gift. Receiving is a condition. Unless you "receive" it, you don't "get" it. You said unless it is received, it is not even a gift, but only an offer. So even you acknowledge that one must meet the condition of "receiving" in order to get the gift. But how do we receive a gift? That depends on the nature of the gift. It has to do with how we take possession of the gift so that it becomes ours. Taking possession of a gift does not make it not a gift as you seem to claim. In fact, you claimed it is just an offer unless someone takes possession of it.

So on the one hand, you say it is not a gift, but only an offer unless you take possession of what is offered (which is what receiving means). On the other hand, you say that if one needs to take possession of the gift (which is indeed a condition) that means it is not a gift. Well, which is it?

What you are really wanting to say is that an offer cannot be received as a gift unless the offer is irresistible, or that a gift is not really a gift if it is not received irresistibly. But that is just a made up definition.

The free offer of salvation is "received" as a gift by simple trust in the giver. In trusting in Christ, we take possession of the gift. Trusting is a condition for receiving the gift, it is how we receive it.

Taking possession of a gift (however that might be done) does not contribute to the gift. It does not make it not a gift (in fact you said it can only be a gift if someone takes possession of it). It does not mean we gave the gift to ourselves. It does not mean we earned it. Taking possession of a gift (or responding to an offer) is not a meritorious act.

As for Scriptural support, here are just three simple examples from countless passages that make the same basic point:

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Gen. 1:29)

So if we do not eat fruit and plant food, does that mean God did not give it to us for food?

And to Noah he said: "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (Gen. 9:3)

So if we eat only vegetables, does that mean that God did not give us meat to eat? And God said he gave us "everything that lives and moves" for food. So does that mean that if I do not eat some of everything that moves, God didn't really give me everything that lives and moves for food? Do I nullify this gift as a real gift until I eat beetles and grubs?

"Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, most beautiful of all lands— because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols. (Ezek. 20:15-16)

God "gave" them the Promised Land, yet they did not possess it because they failed to meet the required condition for taking possession of the gift. But you said a gift can only be a gift if it is received irresistibly and without conditions. Examples like these could be easily multiplied, but these are enough to demonstrate that your definitions and claims are not derived from Scripture or even in harmony with Scripture, but philosophically contrived.



Again, this is just an assertion on your part, and an assertion that has been debunked over and over again. There is no reason to conflate "meeting a condition" with "earning something." If someone writes me a check for a thousand dollars, I will not take "possession" of the money until I endorse and cash the check. Are you seriously saying that if I need to meet the condition of endorsing and cashing the check in order to take possession of the money, that means I "earned" the thousand dollars" and it was not really a gift at all?

"Hey Mike, where did you get all of that money? I thought you were out of work."

"Oh, I earned it."

"You got a job!"

"Nope, someone just wrote me a check for a thousand dollars."

"But I thought you said you earned it."

"That's because I did."

"How so?"

"Isn't it obvious? First I had to take the check out of his hand when he offered it to me. Then I had to sign the back of the check. Then I had to cash it to get the money. Clearly, after all of that I earned every penny."

"What???"

_____________

"What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3-5)

- I will address the rest of your reply after lunch. God Bless.

When I said that what you claim about our faith not being a work is Scriptural I meant that is exactly what the Scriptures say but not that it is what your theology teaches. Your theology is unscriptural because while it claims that our faith is not a work it makes it a work by making it a condition of salvation. You can argue against that all you like but if you must do something that others do not do in order to be saved you make what you do to be a work upon which your salvation depends.

I challenge you to show me one time in the Scriptures where God "offers" eternal life to those who believe. It isn't in them. That is why it is always presented as a gift. There is a difference between the two whether you recognize it or not. They may be accepted as synonyms but they really aren't. If there wasn't a difference in the two there would be only one word. And the truth is that the difference isn't a subtle one but one that makes a great deal of difference in the truth of theology.

You can ignore and deny that your faith saves you and the lack of faith damns others is not a work all you want but it is truth. Faith is not a work only in Biblical Calvinist theology as I explained before.

All of your examples are pointless because in each one you must meet a condition in order to receive the "gift" That may work in your mind and theology but it ignores the truth to do so.

I call your theology man centered because it is. You preach to men as though they must do something and you are trying to convince them to do it. You tell sinners what God can do if they will allow Him the privilege. We tell sinners what God has already done in Christ and the result is sinners have been saved. We leave the convincing to the Spirit. Our preaching points men to Christ while your preaching points men to themselves.

 

[mikedsjr]

That's an interesting question. For me two main issues make one an Arminian of some sort. The first main issue is seeing grace as resistible and election as conditional. The second main issue is affirming total depravity and the subsequent need for enabling grace to make a faith response to the Gospel possible. If you hold to unconditional election, then you are obviously not Arminian. You are a Calvinist of come sort. If you hold to conditional election and deny total depravity or the need for prevenient enabling grace, you are not an Arminian. You are a non-Calvinist, but not an Arminian.

As far as denominational views, that is a tough one. Pentecostals are typically non-Calvinists, but not all. I would say that the Assemblies of God is basically Arminian as a fellowship, but that fellowship is very congregational, so you can have AG preachers with varying views (and sometimes this just comes from ignorance). But by and large I think most AG ministers are broadly Arminian, though many might be more semi-Pelagian. But that is just one branch of Petecostalism.

Wesley was thoroughly Arminian, but his doctrine of entire sanctification (which is itself often misunderstood by his opponents) was not a necessary feature of Arminius' soteriology (he was open to the possibility though, with the caveat that such would only be possible through the continued enabling of God's grace, which is what Wesley would say too). But Wesley affirmed total depravity, the need for prevenient enabling grace and conditional election. So he was Arminian. Did that answer your question?

Some makes sense. I guess I'm trying to figure out what make one interpret Scripture differently. There are certainly differences in interpretation by Calvinist/Reformed/Lutheran. But there is a bit of consistency that I find in read Scripture. I don't hear a C/R/L ask "what is your Goliath?" or quote Jer 29:11 as if it directly is meant for you. All of the people doing such come from the Arminian style camp. And I don't know what is it about Arminian style theology that causes this, or whether it is an offshoot of Arminianism.

I can get along with an Arminian, by your definition. I would want to trust classical Arminianism doesn't interpret like this. But I'm not sure what is the trigger that turns people from interpreting Jeremiah 29:11 in its real context and those who don't care, throw it out without context and turn it into some prophesy for the person. This more than anything makes me view Arminianism with such a ill feelings. And maybe it's Weslyan view that gives Arminianism a worse name.

 

[kangaroodort]

Continuing my response to twin from yesterday, which I was not able to get to yesterday as I hoped. I don't have the time to read follow-up comments at the moment, so will address them sometime later (probably next week).

This is utter nonsense. Arminian theology makes boasting to be the one thing that a sinner can do. If Arminian theology is correct then the sinner can stand before God and boast that he did something that poor wretch in Hell didn't do.

Sorry, but this just doesn't follow as it continues to misunderstand the issue of boasting in Scripture. In Luke 18 Jesus said the tax collector went away "justified" because he acknowledged his need for mercy as a sinner. That is because he called on God to have mercy on him rather than pointing to his own righteousness. The Pharisee boasted over the tax collector, not because he had faith and the tax collector did not, but because he was not a robber, evil doer, or adulterer, and he gave a tenth of all his earnings and fasted twice a week.

And notice this:

"The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. (Luke 18:11)

The Pharisee essentially thanks God for being better than other people, as if it was because of God that he was better or favored more than others. That would seem to be more in line with the claims of Calvinism than Arminianism. While the Pharisee focused on his supposed self-righteousness, he actually begins by giving God the credit for him not being like other sinners.

The tax collector acknowledged that he needed God's mercy to be forgiven and made right with God, while the Pharisee didn't think he needed mercy since he thought he was quite good enough already (and seemed to think this because God made him that way). If the Pharisee was trusting in God for mercy as the tax collector was, he would have also been justified. But he focused on his own righteousness and thanked God for essentially making him better than the sinner who was also there. Again, the idea that God was what made him differ, sounds more like your view than mine, and yet that was the view of the boasting Pharisee!

Robert Shank puts this well in his book, "Elect in the Son",

"Conceit and self-esteem for what, Professor Berkouwer? For totally renouncing all claim to self righteousness? For completely repudiating all dependence on good works? For renouncing all claim to personal merit? For abjectly humbling oneself before God as a broken sinner, deserving of death, helpless, unable to save himself? For casting oneself on the mercies of God and hoping only on the merits and grace of Jesus Christ? These are the elements that are of the essence of saving faith, and where true faith exists, there can be no pride or self-esteem. Pride and faith are mutually exclusive."

He continues later:

"In the case of the assumption of unconditional election, it is quite otherwise. It was precisely the fact of election and the assumption of its irrevocability that fostered such smugness, self-conceit, and reprehensible pride in Israel and encouraged presumptious indifference toward God. And where could one find a more flagrant example of obvious pride than Calvin himself, with his assumption that he was ‘endowed with an incomparable benefit’ so that he was not at all ‘on equal terms with him who has received hardly a hundredth part’ as much grace? No countenance can be given to any equation of synergism with pride, which is simply another theological humbug with which Calvinists for generations have shamelessly begged the question. (pp. 144,145)

Interestingly, Calvin sounds quite a bit like the Pharisee in Luke 18.

While in Scripture boasting is often an issue of assuming that because one is "chosen" they are more "special" than those who are not (cf. Matt. 3:8-10; Luke 3:8; John 8:38-39), in Paul it is often an issue of relying on our own goodness or righteousness instead of God, which is why faith, by its very nature, excludes boasting as it is relying on God to justify us, rather than trying to justify ourselves (as the Pharisee was trying to do),

"What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3-5)

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” (Rom. 9:30-32)

"Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness...For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”(Rom. 10:3, 10-13)

Now this doesn't mean we cannot boast illegitimately, as we surely can and often do. In the same way, in Calvinism, the "elect" could boast over the reprobate before God since God's choice of the "elect" instead of the reprobate was the "right" choice, while choosing the reprobate for salvation or choosing the "elect" for reprobation would have been the "wrong choice." Surely, everything God does is right, and so it would have been "wrong" not to choose the "elect" person for salvation (which, again, sounds quite a bit like the attitude of the Pharisee in Luke 18).

Or the "elect" could boast in being "chosen" in accordance with God's infinite wisdom while the reprobate was rejected in accordance with God's infinite wisdom: "God, you were so wise to choose me instead of my neighbor for salvation!" Or, if we follow Piper's and Edwards' logic, the choice of the elect for salvation instead of for reprobation somehow gives God far more glory. So if God had not chosen the "elect" person for salvation, then He could not have maximized His glory. Choosing him instead of his reprobate neighbor was the best choice for God to maximize His glory. "God, I thank you for maximizing your glory by choosing me for salvation instead of my neighbor. You were so wise and right to do so!"

And how "man-centered" a view it must be to assume that God needs to choose a certain person for salvation in order to "maximize" His gory, just as it is "man-centered" to assume that God's grace is only truly gracious if it is received by someone irresistibly, or that God's love only has value if it is "received" by the human object of His love. How about that, man's response to God's love is what validates God's love and give is it value!

And what about 1 Cor. 10:13 as was pointed out earlier? Does the one who resists temptation have a right to boast over the one who didn't when they were both given the grace to overcome and escape that temptation? And on and on we could go.

In Calvinist theology boasting is excluded because salvation is all the work of God in us and for us. We have no reason to boast or room to boast.

Sure you do as explained above. Or did you mean "legitimate reason" to boast? Well, that sword cuts both ways. And in Calvinism, everything is the result of a work of God in us anyway, since we have no free will.

The electing love of God is, when properly understood, the most humbling experience the sinner can ever know.

Just as receiving a free and undeserved gift from the hand of God by faith in Arminian Theology (and the Bible), when properly understood, is the most humbling experience a sinner can ever know. It's too bad you do not "properly understand" it.

He didn't have to save me but He did. He wasn't obligated to love me but He did. He didn't have to give me life and faith but He did.

Amen!

I am no different than the wretch in Hell

Except that you were the right and wise choice for salvation which maximized God's glory somehow, while the "wretch" in Hell was the wrong choice for salvation.

perhaps I am worse in myself, but yet He chose to love me and send His precious Son to accomplish my salvation. He didn't have to nor was He obligated to in any way,

As an Arminian I say "Amen!", but as a Calvinist, this would mean God's choice was arbitrary.

He could have passed over me just as easily as He did others

Not if all God's choices are in accordance with His infinite wisdom and are always good and right. In that case, God had to choose you for salvation in order to be infinitely wise and right, while reprobating (or passing over) those "others." Otherwise, His choice was entirely arbitrary. Is that what you believe? Is God arbitrary?

I know you think and feel that your view cuts off all reason to boast, but that is not necessarily the case as has been demonstrated. Calvinism also implies that God "had to" choose you instead of "so and so", because choosing you was the infinitely wise, perfectly right and good choice, which best maximizes His glory (which, again, sounds very man-centered to me).

Now, let me point out that you did not really address my counter argument at all. You just dismissed it as "utter nonsense" and then talked about how you imagine that salvation being an irresistible gift makes it impossible to boast (which it doesn't). But the comment asked why works couldn't just as well be the condition for receiving salvation if it was irresistibly caused in us? And it made the point that in Calvinist determinism, all things are the result of an irresistible eternal decree. That includes both works and faith. So on that view, how is it that faith excludes boasting while works does not?

 

[JM]

twin wrote, When I said that what you claim about our faith not being a work is Scriptural I meant that is exactly what the Scriptures say but not that it is what your theology teaches. Your theology is unscriptural because while it claims that our faith is not a work it makes it a work by making it a condition of salvation. You can argue against that all you like but if you must do something that others do not do in order to be saved you make what you do to be a work upon which your salvation depends.

I challenge you to show me one time in the Scriptures where God "offers" eternal life to those who believe. It isn't in them. That is why it is always presented as a gift. There is a difference between the two whether you recognize it or not. They may be accepted as synonyms but they really aren't. If there wasn't a difference in the two there would be only one word. And the truth is that the difference isn't a subtle one but one that makes a great deal of difference in the truth of theology.

You can ignore and deny that your faith saves you and the lack of faith damns others is not a work all you want but it is truth. Faith is not a work only in Biblical Calvinist theology as I explained before.

All of your examples are pointless because in each one you must meet a condition in order to receive the "gift" That may work in your mind and theology but it ignores the truth to do so.

I call your theology man centered because it is. You preach to men as though they must do something and you are trying to convince them to do it. You tell sinners what God can do if they will allow Him the privilege. We tell sinners what God has already done in Christ and the result is sinners have been saved. We leave the convincing to the Spirit. Our preaching points men to Christ while your preaching points men to themselves.

 

[kangaroodort]

Some makes sense. I guess I'm trying to figure out what make one interpret Scripture differently. There are certainly differences in interpretation by Calvinist/Reformed/Lutheran. But there is a bit of consistency that I find in read Scripture. I don't hear a C/R/L ask "what is your Goliath?" or quote Jer 29:11 as if it directly is meant for you. All of the people doing such come from the Arminian style camp. And I don't know what is it about Arminian style theology that causes this, or whether it is an offshoot of Arminianism.

I can get along with an Arminian, by your definition. I would want to trust classical Arminianism doesn't interpret like this. But I'm not sure what is the trigger that turns people from interpreting Jeremiah 29:11 in its real context and those who don't care, throw it out without context and turn it into some prophesy for the person. This more than anything makes me view Arminianism with such a ill feelings. And maybe it's Wesleyan view that gives Arminianism a worse name.

Not interpreting passages rightly is an issue of not carefully studying, not a byproduct of a certain Theological view. I have seen and heard both Calvinist and Arminians misapply Scripture in a lot of bad ways. And I have seen, heard and read solid Biblical exegesis from Calvinist and non-Calvinists. As far as the examples you give, the misapplication of Jer. 29:11 would not come from a Calvinist, because it tends to rub against their theology, while it fits better with an Arminian theology. As far as the "Goliath" thing, that is not such a big deal to me. Is that taking the narrative too far? It depends on what is meant. But there is certainly a lesson there in trusting God with insurmountable difficulties in life. Are our situations just like the situation for David facing Goliath? No, but there is a helpful parallel that can give us courage and peace in the face of opposition or great obstacles.

Usually these types of things come from an attempt to apply Scripture to our lives in sermons (which is not always easy), and not so much in theological discussions or scholarly works. But look at what has been said here by some Calvinists. They have used the raising of Lazarus as a prooftext for regeneration preceding faith. Is that what that passages is really addressing? Of course not. But the Calvinists here see in it a parallel that supports their ordo salutis. For me, that is no less strained than someone appealing to Jer. 29 wrongly.

 

[twin1954]

Continuing my response to twin from yesterday, which I was not able to get to yesterday as I hoped. I don't have the time to read follow-up comments at the moment, so will address them sometime later (probably next week).



Sorry, but this just doesn't follow as it continues to misunderstand the issue of boasting in Scripture. In Luke 18 Jesus said the tax collector went away "justified" because he acknowledged his need for mercy as a sinner. That is because he called on God to have mercy on him rather than pointing to his own righteousness. The Pharisee boasted over the tax collector, not because he had faith and the tax collector did not, but because he was not a robber, evil doer, or adulterer, and he gave a tenth of all his earnings and fasted twice a week.

And notice this:

"The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. (Luke 18:11)

The Pharisee essentially thanks God for being better than other people, as if it was because of God that he was better or favored more than others. That would seem to be more in line with the claims of Calvinism than Arminianism. While the Pharisee focused on his supposed self-righteousness, he actually begins by giving God the credit for him not being like other sinners.

The tax collector acknowledged that he needed God's mercy to be forgiven and made right with God, while the Pharisee didn't think he needed mercy since he thought he was quite good enough already (and seemed to think this because God made him that way). If the Pharisee was trusting in God for mercy as the tax collector was, he would have also been justified. But he focused on his own righteousness and thanked God for essentially making him better than the sinner who was also there. Again, the idea that God was what made him differ, sounds more like your view than mine, and yet that was the view of the boasting Pharisee!

Robert Shank puts this well in his book, "Elect in the Son",

"Conceit and self-esteem for what, Professor Berkouwer? For totally renouncing all claim to self righteousness? For completely repudiating all dependence on good works? For renouncing all claim to personal merit? For abjectly humbling oneself before God as a broken sinner, deserving of death, helpless, unable to save himself? For casting oneself on the mercies of God and hoping only on the merits and grace of Jesus Christ? These are the elements that are of the essence of saving faith, and where true faith exists, there can be no pride or self-esteem. Pride and faith are mutually exclusive."

He continues later:

"In the case of the assumption of unconditional election, it is quite otherwise. It was precisely the fact of election and the assumption of its irrevocability that fostered such smugness, self-conceit, and reprehensible pride in Israel and encouraged presumptious indifference toward God. And where could one find a more flagrant example of obvious pride than Calvin himself, with his assumption that he was ‘endowed with an incomparable benefit’ so that he was not at all ‘on equal terms with him who has received hardly a hundredth part’ as much grace? No countenance can be given to any equation of synergism with pride, which is simply another theological humbug with which Calvinists for generations have shamelessly begged the question. (pp. 144,145)

Interestingly, Calvin sounds quite a bit like the Pharisee in Luke 18.

While in Scripture boasting is often an issue of assuming that because one is "chosen" they are more "special" than those who are not (cf. Matt. 3:8-10; Luke 3:8; John 8:38-39), in Paul it is often an issue of relying on our own goodness or righteousness instead of God, which is why faith, by its very nature, excludes boasting as it is relying on God to justify us, rather than trying to justify ourselves (as the Pharisee was trying to do),

"What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3-5)

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” (Rom. 9:30-32)

"Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness...For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”(Rom. 10:3, 10-13)

Now this doesn't mean we cannot boast illegitimately, as we surely can and often do. In the same way, in Calvinism, the "elect" could boast over the reprobate before God since God's choice of the "elect" instead of the reprobate was the "right" choice, while choosing the reprobate for salvation or choosing the "elect" for reprobation would have been the "wrong choice." Surely, everything God does is right, and so it would have been "wrong" not to choose the "elect" person for salvation (which, again, sounds quite a bit like the attitude of the Pharisee in Luke 18).

Or the "elect" could boast in being "chosen" in accordance with God's infinite wisdom while the reprobate was rejected in accordance with God's infinite wisdom: "God, you were so wise to choose me instead of my neighbor for salvation!" Or, if we follow Piper's and Edwards' logic, the choice of the elect for salvation instead of for reprobation somehow gives God far more glory. So if God had not chosen the "elect" person for salvation, then He could not have maximized His glory. Choosing him instead of his reprobate neighbor was the best choice for God to maximize His glory. "God, I thank you for maximizing your glory by choosing me for salvation instead of my neighbor. You were so wise and right to do so!"

And how "man-centered" a view it must be to assume that God needs to choose a certain person for salvation in order to "maximize" His gory, just as it is "man-centered" to assume that God's grace is only truly gracious if it is received by someone irresistibly, or that God's love only has value if it is "received" by the human object of His love. How about that, man's response to God's love is what validates God's love and give is it value!

And what about 1 Cor. 10:13 as was pointed out earlier? Does the one who resists temptation have a right to boast over the one who didn't when they were both given the grace to overcome and escape that temptation? And on and on we could go.


Sure you do as explained above. Or did you mean "legitimate reason" to boast? Well, that sword cuts both ways. And in Calvinism, everything is the result of a work of God in us anyway, since we have no free will.


Just as receiving a free and undeserved gift from the hand of God by faith in Arminian Theology (and the Bible), when properly understood, is the most humbling experience a sinner can ever know. It's too bad you do not "properly understand" it.


Amen!

Except that you were the right and wise choice for salvation which maximized God's glory somehow, while the "wretch" in Hell was the wrong choice for salvation.


As an Arminian I say "Amen!", but as a Calvinist, this would mean God's choice was arbitrary.



Not if all God's choices are in accordance with His infinite wisdom and are always good and right. In that case, God had to choose you for salvation in order to be infinitely wise and right, while reprobating (or passing over) those "others." Otherwise, His choice was entirely arbitrary. Is that what you believe? Is God arbitrary?

I know you think and feel that your view cuts off all reason to boast, but that is not necessarily the case as has been demonstrated. Calvinism also implies that God "had to" choose you instead of "so and so", because choosing you was the infinitely wise, perfectly right and good choice, which best maximizes His glory (which, again, sounds very man-centered to me).

Now, let me point out that you did not really address my counter argument at all. You just dismissed it as "utter nonsense" and then talked about how you imagine that salvation being an irresistible gift makes it impossible to boast (which it doesn't). But the comment asked why works couldn't just as well be the condition for receiving salvation if it was irresistibly caused in us? And it made the point that in Calvinist determinism, all things are the result of an irresistible eternal decree. That includes both works and faith. So on that view, how is it that faith excludes boasting while works does not?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance confuse them with lengthy BS. I don't have the time to respond properly to your long and tedious posts.

For this one let me say that it is utter nonsense and anyone who has read my post to which you are responding knows it. Comparing Calvinists to the Pharisee is blatant and utterly absurd bombastic claptrap intended to stir the pot and make the discussion about something which is false. It is a red herring and you know it.

I do understand what the Arminian believes and why. I have read Arminius and Wesley and others from your camp. Not only that but I have had many discussions with Arminian pastors and preachers. You haven't brought anything which I haven't seen or heard before. And the problem still remains that you can't get around Arminian theology has man saving himself by his decision to believe.