Why do Arminians...

[Hammster]

I just settled in to the computer again after figuring out that you probably meant sovereign election.

There's no way to know for sure where Calvin was coming from. But I suppose that he may have been just throwing up the old red herring. Or, then again, there may have been some universal salvation teaching going on that occasioned it.

Even as one who leans toward RT I never could see where seeing the atonement as sufficient for all who would come would lead to universalism. I agree that it is a red herring.

More than it's occasionally being used to support sovereign election (which needs no more support than that which is readily available from direct statements in scripture) - I believe that concept is more often used to support limited atonement which does need some of that kind of support IMO.

The idea for limited atonement Reformed types is the oft repeated statement that, if the atonement is for all, then it would be double jeopardy if anyone had to undergo punishment for their sins - since they were already paid for. Therefore if the atonement was for all - all must be saved or God would be unjust.

My particular take on that is that we all (saved folks) were at one time in the situation where our sins had been fully paid for some 2000 years ago and yet we were for many years in some of our cases unjustified vessels of wrath even as the rest. That is until we were finally justified by faith. Who's to say that that exact condition could continue for eternity for the reprobate?

After all everything and everyone in creation will in some mysterious way be in Christ at the end of the age so that He may be all in all. At that time He will hand the whole thing over to the Father from whom it ultimately came anyway. Christ is and will remain the wrath covered lamb and the highly exalted lion for eternity. Both the justice and the grace of God will somehow be on display in the ages to come though the experience of the Word of God in this fallen age. He will accomplish everything the Father sent Him out to do. In this age that is to display the "good and evil thing" and it's consequences once for all.

And by the way -the Word of God will be omni present for eternity in Hell as well as in Heaven and on the new earth and everywhere else. Could He not form the atonement (propitiation or "meeting place" for man and God) for both the justified and the reprobate alike? After all it does say that He is the propitiation for us and the whole world.

Something like that anyway!
I don't want to go beyond what is written.

But the point to me is that there are plenty of ways that I (even with my little human pea brain) can see where this can be done. All that has to be demonstrated is that there are other ways to think of these things to make the red herring obvious for exactly what it is - a red herring.

(Strange thoughts for a strange guy I suppose. But then I do have the mind of Christ.)

Just a couple of thoughts. One, most RT folks will affirm that the cross was sufficient for all. But that does not mean that it was efficient for all. So I'm not sure who said that being sufficient leads to universalism.

Two, I can't really see how any of the elect were vessels of wrath. The same nature? Yes. But out of the same clay He makes different vessels.

Just done thoughts.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Two, I can't really see how any of the elect were vessels of wrath.

Paul could see clearly that they were. Even those who will believe are born spiritually dead and separated from God, due to sin. And until the moment of faith, all are under the wrath of God.

Ephesians 2:1
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

John 3:36
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

The same nature? Yes. But out of the same clay He makes different vessels.

Erroneous conclusion from Rom 9:22-23. The word for "fitted" or more poorly translated "prepared" is 'katartizo', which has nothing to do with making, but more to do with repairing, retrofitting, completion. And because of the verb tense, the voice cannot be determined from the word, since the same form is used for both middle and passive in that verb tense. While you may disagree, the text supports the middle voice for 9:22. Just like the middle voice is supported in the context of Acts 13:48.

 

[Hammster]

Paul could see clearly that they were. Even those who will believe are born spiritually dead and separated from God, due to sin. And until the moment of faith, all are under the wrath of God.

Ephesians 2:1
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

John 3:36
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”


Erroneous conclusion from Rom 9:22-23. The word for "fitted" or more poorly translated "prepared" is 'katartizo', which has nothing to do with making, but more to do with repairing, retrofitting, completion. And because of the verb tense, the voice cannot be determined from the word, since the same form is used for both middle and passive in that verb tense. While you may disagree, the text supports the middle voice for 9:22. Just like the middle voice is supported in the context of Acts 13:48.

If open theism were true, you'd probably have a point. But since God knows from eternity past who will be saved, I can't see how in any real sense that God's wrath would abide on any future believer. This is especially true since Christ bore God's wrath on the cross, and this was also done, in a sense, before the foundation of the world.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Just a couple of thoughts. One, most RT folks will affirm that the cross was sufficient for all. But that does not mean that it was efficient for all. So I'm not sure who said that being sufficient leads to universalism.

Two, I can't really see how any of the elect were vessels of wrath. The same nature? Yes. But out of the same clay He makes different vessels.

Just done thoughts.

All do seem to take up the sufficient/efficient mantra. But 5-pointer almost always do say that Arminianism should logically be extended to universalism if taken to it's logical conclusion. Would that all so called Calvinists felt the same as you do.

If they just left it with the sufficiency/effectiveness concept and made the "L" simply mean something like "limited ultimate effectiveness of the atonement" there probably wouldn't be much disagreement between them and Arminians.

Unfortunately the doctrine of limited atonement is presented by most 5-pointer as to say, as I've heard it expounded many times, the non elect "weren't even on the radar" of God when He crushed His Son.

Leave that kind of thought out of Calvinism and Calvinists and Arminians could probably find a little more common ground concerning the other 4 points IMO.

Regarding that 2nd idea - I'll just point to the scriptures presented in post number 329 by FreeGrace2.


You say in your next post:
".........since God knows from eternity past who will be saved, I can't see how in any real sense that God's wrath would abide on any future believer. This is especially true since Christ bore God's wrath on the cross, and this was also done, in a sense, before the foundation of the world."

I don't know about any "real sense". All I know is what God says about it. Again - this is human logic. We certainly need to apply logic to these things for sure. But when that logic goes beyond what the scriptures teach it becomes a liability.

That is true whether it is coming from a 5-point Calvinist or an Arminian.

I can hardly believe I'm arguing (in the good sense of the word) so much against Calvinists here. It usually seems to be more against Arminians.

So..........


At the risk of opening myself up to fire from both sides - I do believe that the Arminians do the same kind of extended logic when they say that foreseen faith is the basis for predestination.

Not only do they seemingly twist the plain sense of the concept from scripture - they also dance around other inescapable concepts from scripture.

Without expounding for too long on those things, I'm talking about everything from the inability of fallen man to understand the things of God without a special act of God and I'm talking about the almost purposeful ignoring of the special calling demanded by the call/justification implications from the so called golden chain of salvation from Romans 8 ----- just to name a couple.

They end up with God not being the author of their faith IMO.

IMO - a combo of the two viewpoints (maybe leaning a little more one way than the other as you see things) would probably be more in line with God's viewpoint.

I've tried to do that all my theological life. I even threw in a charismatic prayer language and added a subscription to the plain truth concerning some aspects of Word of Faith.

I'm pretty happy with where the COUNSELOR has taken me in the last 7 decades. I will also remain open to His teaching in the future. I hope everyone will do the same.

 

[stan1953]

Too bad that some feel no twinge of guilt or remorse for treating another believer with contempt and dismissiveness, just because they hold a different theological understanding. Especially when that understanding is the result of serious time in reading the word, praying for understanding, and sincerely wanting to understand the why behind the belief.

In my case, I have never attended a Calvinist or Reformed church, my beliefs are what I see in the Bible. If one had to classify me as anything other than a believer in Christ, which is my preference, it would have to be as a Charismatic Calvinist, with an undecided eschatological view. Undecided only because it has not been my focus of study, due to the demands of day-to-day life, i.e. making a living. I am learning to trust God for my daily provision, and for wisdom and favor in my business (I'm self-employed).

I try to be direct and clear in my spoken and written words, and it surprises me at the equivocation and avoidance of some here. Many times, I make an observation, or a point, and get anything but a straight answer, or indication of understanding, but rather contempt, condescension, and needless and warrantless judgments about my character, my honesty, and in some case questioning whether I am a true believer or not, because of the Calvinist leaning of my theological view. That kind of treatment puts me on edge, and angers me, because it is so needless, and juvenile. Any believer is worthy of respect from his fellow believers unless and/or until they have given reason to not be treated that way, and a differing theological view does not qualify as a reason to do so.

As I indicated, Oz and I know each other personally, and even though I don't always agree with him, I have known him to be an affable, entertaining, and thoroughly genuine man, the very essence of a 'nice guy', and one who I am proud to know on a personal level. We can disagree, sometimes very sharply, but still respect each other. Would to God that more here could be that way with each other.

Personally I have no problem with those who hold a different theological POV, as long as they aren't condescending about it. Sadly ,human effort does not totally account for a person's understanding. As Jesus conveyed, the Holy Spirit is the main reason we understand a lot of scripture and we need to have the baptism of the Holy Spirit for that very purpose.
There are many who seriously study God's Word and get it wrong. I'm sure I don't need to point out all the false teaching that exists in the BOC.

Your experience is NOT unique of course as the Soteriology debate crosses all denominational lines. Although it may be seen as attached to specific denoms such as Baptist or Pentecostal, it is not as confined as some may believe.

Sadly this is true and I doubt very much that many participants on this particular forum are unbelievers. Human emotions can interfere, and some are adept at pushing buttons without consequences. That is one of the many reasons CF needs Moderators. I tried, but realized I am not willing to WORK now that I am retired. Even when I worked I did as little as possible.

As a Canadian I have an affinity for Aussies and Kiwis, and it doesn't hurt that Oz and I are for the most part on the same page.

 

[stan1953]

Being cut and dried can come across to those reading the post as cold and uncaring. That's why I prefer those who engage in some back and forth 'banter' so that we can illustrate what we are talking about and engage with each other.
I had an example of this in the sermon I preached last night (that should be on the church's website by Tuesday this week). I was explaining being a 'double-minded man' (James 1:8) as being like Mr Facing-both-ways in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim’s Progress.
I used this first graphic that didn't require any further explanation as it cut and dried:
Cut and dried statements too often are from the perspective of the presenter or writer. They often require further explanation as I found out last night.

What seems cut and dried to me may sound abrupt and offensive to the listener or reader. These are only some thoughts for consideration.​

In Christ,
Oz

Thanks Oz,

for better or worse it is my style and I use it mostly to avoid getting personally involved. It is how I was as a business man, so 35 years of doing it that was is not something that will go away.

It's the main reason I didn't become a pastor OR a politician.

Once people get to know me, they have no problem with my bluntness.
It must be my Scottish heritage. Not a lot of inner monologue.

 

[nobdysfool]

I think Oz pretty much nailed it. That's what i object to, the abruptness that comes off as more than that, the condescension that doesn't ned to be there. Stan, you and I probably agree on more than we disagree on, when summed up. I know Oz and I do. Yet we do disagree on some things, and passionately so. personally, I think that we all tend to have tunnel vision, and forget that there are a lot of different people here who have trodden some very divergent paths to get to where they are right now. that is going to have an effect on their perspective, and the point they are at in their walk with Christ will also have an effect. We don't just burst forth, fully-formed, and in possession of the nuances of theological belief. It's a journey, not just a destination.

I'm semi-retired. I am also self-employed which does give me more control over my time, and my use of it. And therein lies the rub. Trying to make better use of my time, while not getting so busy I haven't got time to breathe.

I will try to remember your reasons for your style of posting, Stan. Just don't call into question, even indirectly, my intelligence or my standing with Christ. Deal?

 

[stan1953]

I think Oz pretty much nailed it. That's what i object to, the abruptness that comes off as more than that, the condescension that doesn't ned to be there. Stan, you and I probably agree on more than we disagree on, when summed up. I know Oz and I do. Yet we do disagree on some things, and passionately so. personally, I think that we all tend to have tunnel vision, and forget that there are a lot of different people here who have trodden some very divergent paths to get to where they are right now. that is going to have an effect on their perspective, and the point they are at in their walk with Christ will also have an effect. We don't just burst forth, fully-formed, and in possession of the nuances of theological belief. It's a journey, not just a destination.
I'm semi-retired. I am also self-employed which does give me more control over my time, and my use of it. And therein lies the rub. Trying to make better use of my time, while not getting so busy I haven't got time to breathe.
I will try to remember your reasons for your style of posting, Stan. Just don't call into question, even indirectly, my intelligence or my standing with Christ. Deal?

I get that, and please remember when you make those out of the blue posts how they come across, and why I respond to them as such.

There is no doubt in my mind that the BOC agrees on far more than they disagree on. I try not to let passion affect my replies and FYI, I am on meds for my clinical depression, have been for over 25 years, so they do keep me on a fairly even keel in that regard.

I would NEVER deliberately nor knowingly do so, even if it has come across as such.

 

[Skala]

To "elect" something and to "choose" something is synonymous.

Not sure what agenda would make someone try to find a difference.

 

[Skala]

With all the passages I gave, how can you say God looks upon sin and rewards it a new heart?

He doesn't 'reward' anyone with a new heart, as if it's something they earned.

A new heart is an act of grace and mercy, which by very definition mean they are un-earned. They are given voluntarily.

 

[Skala]

No, the problem is that you EQUATE "wages" and "gift," again demonstrating that Calvinists and Arminians understand language and reality in fundamentally different ways.

In Calvinism, everything that is described as a "gift" is likened to a dead man receiving the gift of life.

You can't first askt he dead man to "accept" life. He's dead. He cannot do anything other than lie there motionless and be the passive recipient of life.

That's how regeneration is.

The Bible uses death and life as the analogy for regeneration on purpose. (over against the Arminian "you're sick and need medicine - will you take it or not?" analogy of regeneration)

 

[stan1953]

To "elect" something and to "choose" something is synonymous.
Not sure what agenda would make someone try to find a difference.

"Elect" in the Bible is not the same connotation as chosen, so is NOT synonymous as such.
Only those who force the RT POV on the word have an agenda.
The fact is if you study the word you will find it doesn't connote selection, as only those who ARE Christians are called elect. A Governor-Elect is NOT a Governor yet, and neither is a bride elect or President elect.

 

[FreeGrace2]

To "elect" something and to "choose" something is synonymous.

So, you elect your socks every morning, assuming that you wear them every morning.

Not sure what agenda would make someone try to find a difference.

Those who think 'elect' and 'choose' are synonymous are confused about their meanings.

 

[OzSpen]

To "elect" something and to "choose" something is synonymous.

Not sure what agenda would make someone try to find a difference.

How would you defend that position biblically? Can we do it without getting into the Arminian vs Calvinistic controversy?

 

[Marvin Knox]

If I was one of God's chosen and based on that fact become a recipient of a new nature (not by the will of man, but of God) - then my title changed and I become one of God's elect?

So those who are justified by faith are the elect where before they were only one of the chosen? The Bible clearly teaches that God is the author of our faith. (That faith was given as a gift because we were were at one time His chosen?)

Did I get that right?
Please correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

If so it seems to me to be a distinction with not much of a difference (except perhaps a split second in time). Seems to me to be an attempt to get around the fact that salvation is of the Lord (repentance, faith, glorification - the whole enchilada) and that all of those things were predestined before the foundation of the world by the sovereign God for His chosen. (Soon to become His elect, right?)

Not to judge anyone's motive for splitting hairs but it sure seems that way to me!

 

[FreeGrace2]

If I was one of God's chosen and based on that fact become a recipient of a new nature (not by the will of man, but of God) - then my title changed and I become one of God's elect?

So those who are justified by faith are the elect where before they were only one of the chosen? The Bible clearly teaches that God is the author of our faith. (That faith was given as a gift because we were were at one time His chosen?)

Did I get that right?
Please correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

If so it seems to me to be a distinction with not much of a difference (except perhaps a split second in time). Seems to me to be an attempt to get around the fact that salvation is of the Lord (repentance, faith, glorification - the whole enchilada) and that all of those things were predestined before the foundation of the world by the sovereign God for His chosen. (Soon to become His elect, right?)

Not to judge anyone's motive for splitting hairs but it sure seems that way to me!

The point is that election is about being CHOSEN for special privilege and service. God elects all believers, proven by Eph 1:4, where Paul wrote "God CHOSE (eklegomai=elected) US (that being believers).

Eph 1:4 is clear; God elected believers. For what purpose, for all elections have a purpose (Rom 9:11). The purpose is found at the end of v.4- "to be holy and blameless". God elects every believer to be Christ-like, and for His service.

There is NO verse that says that anyone has been elected to salvation. God chooses who He will save; yes. And we know on WHAT basis He makes that choice: belief. 1 Cor 1:21.

 

[nobdysfool]

Belief (Faith) is the result of God's choice, not it's cause.

1Co 1:18-24 ESV For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." (20) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (22) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, (23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The preaching of the gospel is the means God has chosen to bring in those He has chosen to save. Please note that verse 21, which is cited frequently, says nothing about choosing those who believe. He saves those who believe, which no Calvinist would argue with. But there is no mention of choice here, either by God, or by man. The context of the passage is about contrasting the wisdom of man with the comparative foolishness of the Gospel, as judged by man. It is supportive of the Sovereignty of God over Salvation, and not man's purported 'free will' choice. Men believe because God changes their hearts to receive the Gospel, by the faith He imparts by the hearing of the Word with newly opened ears.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Belief (Faith) is the result of God's choice, not it's cause.

1Co 1:18-24 ESV For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." (20) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (22) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, (23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Please point out the specific verse that supports your opening statement about faith being the result of God's choice. I cannot find anything close to supporting that statement in the passage here, nor any other passage.

Please note that verse 21, which is cited frequently, says nothing about choosing those who believe.

Why should it "have to say" something about choosing. The statement is very clear about who God saves; believers. In fact, it emphasizes God's pleasure in who He saves. It should be obvious that when God does something (saves someone) that pleases Himself, He is clearly making a choice to do what pleases Him.

He saves those who believe, which no Calvinist would argue with.

But Calvinism goes too far and makes the claim that God is the cause of man's faith. Without any support from Scripture.

God does not choose who will believe, nor is He the cause of said belief. If He were, there would be clear Scripture on that.

In fact, Scriptures the exact opposite idea; that man is urged to believe.

But there is no mention of choice here, either by God, or by man.

Just dealt with that, and anyone is free to choose to accept or reject the reality of 1 Cor 1:21 about what God is pleased to CHOOSE to do, which is to save those who believe.

Men believe because God changes their hearts to receive the Gospel, by the faith He imparts by the hearing of the Word with newly opened ears.

Is there any clear verse that actually states that God changes heart so man can believe the gospel? I haven't found any.

 

[stan1953]

Belief (Faith) is the result of God's choice, not it's cause.
1Co 1:18-24 ESV For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." (20) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (22) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, (23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
The preaching of the gospel is the means God has chosen to bring in those He has chosen to save. Please note that verse 21, which is cited frequently, says nothing about choosing those who believe. He saves those who believe, which no Calvinist would argue with. But there is no mention of choice here, either by God, or by man. The context of the passage is about contrasting the wisdom of man with the comparative foolishness of the Gospel, as judged by man. It is supportive of the Sovereignty of God over Salvation, and not man's purported 'free will' choice. Men believe because God changes their hearts to receive the Gospel, by the faith He imparts by the hearing of the Word with newly opened ears.

So either Paul is contradicting himself in Romans 10:6-13, or he is NOT saying what you assert he is in 1 Cor 1:18-24

But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
​

Of course I believe the latter. In fact what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 1:18-24, IN CONTEXT, is about what he points out in v20; Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
These are people who have already taken the POV that God doesn't exist and their wisdom tells them so. If you want a taste of this, then go to the public part of this forum where atheists debate Christians and see just how wise and superior they think they are.

 

[Skala]

How would you defend that position biblically? Can we do it without getting into the Arminian vs Calvinistic controversy?

I defend it because the words mean the exact same thing. Do U even Thesaurus bro?