Why discuss Calvinism vs Arminianism in Evangelism? Starts with Definitions

[Josheb]

Says the guy who just called me stupid.

The evidence says otherwise, and you're still not taking responsibility for yourself and arguing an ad hominem.

Not according to the confession. He already ordained everything including every one of my sins. To blame it on sin is just to appeal to something God ( in reformed theology) caused.

Argumentum ad nauseam does not change reality.

He already ordained everything without being the author of sin, violating human will, nor violating secondary causes. God did not plan every sin.

You are simply incorrect, vainly asserting falsehood, and arguing a straw man. Repeating the tired mantra wno't change those facts, either.

No, it was misleading.

The evidence says otherwise.

Calves do this constantly.

Ad hominem noted and treated accordingly for what it is: another fallacy employed to avoid the facts.

Y'all also limit God to knowing only what he decrees. I can know what I'm going to do. That's not a supernatural attribute at all.

Evidence says otherwise. Calvinism does not negate foreknowledge; it simply asserts God didn't use it as a basis for His purpose in salvation. You're arguing another straw man and another false dichotomy.


You should probably quit while only a little behind.


I'll be moving on now. You were given plenty of opportunity to prove your position and all you did was repeat the same claim in different words, endlessly begging the question (another fallacy, btw).


God did ordain everything that comes to pass and He did so without becoming the author of sin, nor doing violence to human volition nor the contingency of secondary clauses. He saves people without regard to how they have behaved based on His will, not the will of the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer.

Non-believers are not believers.

Non-believers don't make believers of themselves and every leading soteriologically-minded theologian including Arminus whole-heartedly embraced and taught what we now call "total depravity." Apart from God we cann ot and do not come to God for salvation. It is only after God has acted for His purpose of saving the sinner that the human can do anything and Cals and Arms simply arue over that point of human volitional agency. Arminianism is not a volitionally open system.

 

[BobRyan]

He already ordained everything without being the author of sin, violating human will, nor violating secondary causes. God did not plan every sin. .

Indeed - free will provides that level of independence between the act/thought/plan of sin and the Creator who enables free will. Thus he is not responsible for the act of rebellion he does not make someone take His name in vain.

 

[BobRyan]

Evidence says otherwise. Calvinism does not negate foreknowledge; it simply asserts God didn't use it as a basis for His purpose in salvation. .

Calvinism needs to write more scripture.

Because actual scripture says -- "according to His foreknowledge" instead of "apart from any access to foreknowledge" or "in spite of foreknowledge".

1 Peter 1:1-2 "who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God "

"Chosen but NOT according to the foreknowledge" of God is simply inserting a "NOT" into the text that we actually have in the Bible.

 

[renniks]

The evidence says otherwise, and you're still not taking responsibility for yourself and arguing an ad hominem.

Argumentum ad nauseam does not change reality.

He already ordained everything without being the author of sin, violating human will, nor violating secondary causes. God did not plan every sin.

You are simply incorrect, vainly asserting falsehood, and arguing a straw man. Repeating the tired mantra wno't change those facts, either.

The evidence says otherwise.

Ad hominem noted and treated accordingly for what it is: another fallacy employed to avoid the facts.

Evidence says otherwise. Calvinism does not negate foreknowledge; it simply asserts God didn't use it as a basis for His purpose in salvation. You're arguing another straw man and another false dichotomy.


You should probably quit while only a little behind.


I'll be moving on now. You were given plenty of opportunity to prove your position and all you did was repeat the same claim in different words, endlessly begging the question (another fallacy, btw).


God did ordain everything that comes to pass and He did so without becoming the author of sin, nor doing violence to human volition nor the contingency of secondary clauses. He saves people without regard to how they have behaved based on His will, not the will of the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer.

Non-believers are not believers.

Non-believers don't make believers of themselves and every leading soteriologically-minded theologian including Arminus whole-heartedly embraced and taught what we now call "total depravity." Apart from God we cann ot and do not come to God for salvation. It is only after God has acted for His purpose of saving the sinner that the human can do anything and Cals and Arms simply arue over that point of human volitional agency. Arminianism is not a volitionally open system.

You could have saved your self some typing by just saying: " your objections don't matter because I say they don't." Which is all you said anyway.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

I don't know of very many people who will try to squeeze that down into "its all the same”.

Neither do I. It’s not all the same, it’s all finite human beings trying to understand an infinite God.

What is worth discussion and debate and argumentation IMO, is those things of the faith with clear defense in scripture that impact Christian life and behavior.

the Calvinist and Arminianism will do all of the same things if they follow scripture: pray, share the gospel, fellowship, feed the hungry, be compassionate to the poor and weak, worship God, use their spiritual gifts...etc.


No difference. It’s a waste. It’s like arguing about eschatological issues....which won’t be understood until we are dead or Jesus comes back.

 

[BobRyan]

What is worth discussion and debate and argumentation IMO, is those things of the faith with clear defense in scripture

Agreed -

"God so loved the WORLD that He gave ... -- "yes really" John 3:16

hence the OP =========================================

In Arminianism free will exists because of the supernatural act of God in "drawing all mankind unto Him" John 12:32 and as a result we have

Evangelism where "we BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
Evangelism where it is not God's WILL that ANY should perish (2 Peter 3) and yet only 'the FEW' of Matthew 7 are ultimately saved?
Evangelism where Christ "is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2
Evangelism where "God so LOVED the WORLD that He gave.."... yes really?
Evangelism where "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1 John 4:14?

And when someone chooses to be lost anyway God's response is
Evangelism where "he came to His own and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
Evangelism where Christ laments "Oh Jerusalem .. how I WANTED to spare your children.. but YOU would not"? Matt 23
He laments - "what more could I have done than that which I have already done?" Isaiah 5:4


Notice where the focus of "action" is in Rom 10

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

 

[BobRyan]

the Calvinist and Arminianism will do all of the same things if they follow scripture: pray, share the gospel, .

you are still keeping a safe distance from the Bible details vs the claims made in the posts.. when you summarize.

you mentioned "share the gospel", the "good news".

if I tell you that someone (not all.. but someone) in your neighborhood has 1 million dollars waiting for them at the post office but if they don't pick it up then it will be delivered to them personally ... do you then go to everyone and beg them to march down to the post office and demand that 1 million dollars be given to them since the news just said that they have it?? seriously?

On the other hand if you were told that everyone in your neighborhood has a million dollars waiting for them at the post office - wouldn't you be "just a bit more inclined" to tell each neighbor to go pick it up??

The response you appear to keep giving to these very clear explanations is "it would not make a difference to me" which is getting increasingly more difficult to explain.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Agreed -

"God so loved the WORLD that He gave ... -- "yes really" John 3:16

hence the OP =========================================

In Arminianism free will exists because of the supernatural act of God in "drawing all mankind unto Him" John 12:32 and as a result we have

Evangelism where "we BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
Evangelism where it is not God's WILL that ANY should perish (2 Peter 3) and yet only 'the FEW' of Matthew 7 are ultimately saved?
Evangelism where Christ "is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2
Evangelism where "God so LOVED the WORLD that He gave.."... yes really?
Evangelism where "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1 John 4:14?

And when someone chooses to be lost anyway God's response is
Evangelism where "he came to His own and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
Evangelism where Christ laments "Oh Jerusalem .. how I WANTED to spare your children.. but YOU would not"? Matt 23
He laments - "what more could I have done than that which I have already done?" Isaiah 5:4


Notice where the focus of "action" is in Rom 10

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

Ok, I think we have reached the fundamental disagreement, I respect the scriptural defenses for free will theology with certain restrictions and you believe the scripture clearly indicates Calvinism, which is fine. I actually lean more in your direction than theirs anyway, I’m just apathetic about the disagreement because I literally can’t think of a single real life difference in responsibilities of Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok, I think we have reached the fundamental disagreement, I respect the scriptural defenses for free will theology with certain restrictions and you believe the scripture clearly indicates Calvinism, which is fine. .

I think scripture indicates Calvinism??? Why do you say that?

 

[Josheb]

Indeed - free will provides that level of independence between the act/thought/plan of sin and the Creator who enables free will.

Prove it.

Let me clarify that challenge. There was a time in history when two people once, for a very brief period, had the ability to will and act without the influence of sin (Rom. 5:12). That ended at Genesis 3:7. Between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:7 those two humans were good (Gen. 1:31) and unashamed (Gen. 2:25) and sinless (Rom. 5:12), unencumbered by the effects of sin but they were still bound by God's commands (Gen. 2:17) and the inherent moral design of creation (Rom. 6:23, 8:2). If they sinned they would die. They did not possess any "level of independence between the act/thought/plan of sin and the Creator who enables free will" in that regard.

It is completely incorrect to say free will provides "that level." Neither I nor the WCF stated free will provides any level of anything. You turned the order around, emphasizing free will independently of God. The cart before the horse. WCF 3.1 does not state humanity is independent of God; it merely says what God ordained He ordained without doing violence to human will. What God ordained He ordained without doing violence to the human will that is bound to His will, His commands, and should humans ever disobey God, then God does no violence to the already violently violated, dead, enslaved, and corrupt will.

But there's another completely different problem with the premise "free will provides that level of independence..." The second problem is that of sin. While human will may function with some modicum of freedom, volition does not and cannot act independently of God's will, it cannot act independently of God's commands and the moral structure or design of creation (there is no way a human can escape the wages of sin apart from Christ), and, lastly, once having sinned it is impossible for the will to function apart from the effects of sin (Gen. 6:5, Isa. 64:6, Jn. 3:19, Rom. 8:6) and many, many other places throughout the Bible) which the Bible describes quite diversely and egregiously. The Bible states we were helpless (Rom. 5:6).

No independence over God's will should He ever will how we will.
No independence over the design of creation.
No independence from sin.


Arminius agreed. Arminius stated quite plainly in the state of sin the human can do nothing to effect his own salvation. That is NOT independence.

So there's a brief summary case against the claim just made. I did not read a single sliver of a fraction of anything into any of those verses I cited. Every single one of them is presented as written, plainly stated. Now's your opportunity to either concede to that case or prove the statement, "free will provides that level of independence between the act/thought/plan of sin" and God Who ordained all things without doing violence to the human will.

You've made a claim, Bob. Now evidence it and then prove it. Do so without reading into scripture things scripture doesn't actually state. Or acknowledge the claim made is not correct.

Thus he is not responsible for the act of rebellion he does not make someone take His name in vain.

Yep

But that's not because we are volitionally free of God to the point of autonomy. Few in Christian history have ever held humanity to be wholly independent of God. The mainstream orthodox position has been that of limited freedom, and limited freedom that is now severely compromised by sin. When we Christians discuss soteriology we are not discussing human will in general. We are not discussing what degree of volitional agency humans have in general. Soteriology is specifically about salvation. Soteriology is about salvation and not what freedom you or I have to choose our favorite flavor of ice cream, or which route to take home from work. When we talk about soteriology we are - by definition - talking about the sinner's volitional ability to will and to act for the sole purpose of salvation. All other forms and arenas of volition are irrelevant.

And as I have already proven to you using Arminius' own words, Arminius did not believe humans were in fact free enough to come to God for salvation in their own might. The human will is not an open system in Arminianism as was incorrectly stated in this op. Salvation requires God to breach the "system" that is closed and corrupted by sin. Whether or not He does so with all men and whether or not He does so with all men with an identical purpose is not applicable until after He breaches the closed tyrannical deadly system of sin.



And, Bob, You've been disputing my dissent for days now but you have not actually proven he claim, "the arminian model is an open system" where the gospel is open to anyone who hears and opens the door. You have not proven that claim. You have not refuted my dissent. You have, in fact, posted several arguments that contradict the claim of openness and now you're asserting things not in evidence, things not yet proven, claims not evidenced anywhere with scripture, twisting the statement quoted from WCF 3.1, and a statement that I've shown is at a minimum inconsistent with plainly read scripture and Arminius' own stated position.

In the sinful state humans can do nothing apart from Christ. That is not an open system and it is not independence.


So either adjust your thoughts, doctrines, and practice accordingly or make the case for claims made. Because this has taken days already I will wait for one last post before moving on to the next concern in this op. Make the next post a good post.

 

[Josheb]

Calvinism needs to write more scripture.

That's a joke, right?

Calvin was one of the most thorough and prodigious writers in all of Christian history! His systematic theology is observably, measurably more thorough in comparison to that of most others; enormously so. He wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible whereby he went through the verses one by one by one. Furthermore, the Westminster Confession of Faith comes accompanied with catechisms and proofs to which I linked you and all the other readers, and those catechisms are filled with scriptural references supporting the statements made in the WCF!

Calvinism needs to write more scripture???

The evidence proves otherwise.

Because actual scripture says -- "according to His foreknowledge" instead of "apart from any access to foreknowledge" or "in spite of foreknowledge".

1 Peter 1:1-2 "who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God "

"Chosen but NOT according to the foreknowledge" of God is simply inserting a "NOT" into the text that we actually have in the Bible.

(josh grins) Yes let's do use more scripture, shall we?

Let's look at the whole of 1 Peter 1:1-2 and ot just the nine words you quote mined from the passage in neglect of all that it states.

1 Peter 1:1-2
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure."​

We were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God.
We were chosen by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
We were chosen to obey Jesus and be sprinkled with his blood.

That is what the verse states, not what I make it say with any added interpretation. Note there's not a single mention of having been chosen by the choices we make while still sinners.

Now let's take a look at the WCF article to which you allude without giving the reader a specific reference. WCF 3.vi states

"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[m] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam,are redeemed by Christ,n are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,oand kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation.p Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only."​

That little "m" I left in there is a reference to 1 Pet. 1:1-2. The proof provided by the WCF contains a reference to 1 Pet. 1:1-2!

So we see the WCF does in fact state God as appointed His elect to glory based on His foreknowledge.

You got it incorrect.

Similar statements and references to foreknowledge will be found in WCF 5.1 & .2.


So I can and have evidenced and proven what I post. You've been shown, once again, to be incorrect. Remember this is currently all about the idea Arminianism is a volitionally open system for the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer. The digressive foray into the WCF stems from a false claim made about Calvinism being robot soteriology when clearly it is not, but the overarching matter at hand is the claim Arminianism is a volitionally open system for the sinful non-believer when in demonstrable fact Arminius did not hold such a view and you have not proven otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

Evidence says otherwise. Calvinism does not negate foreknowledge; it simply asserts God didn't use it as a basis for His purpose in salvation. .

Calvinism needs to write more scripture.

Because actual scripture says -- "according to His foreknowledge" instead of "apart from any access to foreknowledge" or "in spite of foreknowledge".

1 Peter 1:1-2 "who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God "

"Chosen but NOT according to the foreknowledge" of God is simply inserting a "NOT" into the text that we actually have in the Bible.

That's a joke, right?

The Bible texts above are not a joke of course - but as you say my comment about "write more scripture" was an attempt at some level of humor.

Calvin was one of the most thorough and prodigious writers in all of Christian history!

Agreed. Calvin, Luther, the Wesleys, Huss and Jerome, Wycliff and many others. No doubt they were all great men of God. I am not questioning that.

 

[BobRyan]

Evidence says otherwise. Calvinism does not negate foreknowledge; it simply asserts God didn't use it as a basis for His purpose in salvation. .

Let's look at the whole of 1 Peter 1:1-2 and ot just the nine words you quote mined from the passage in neglect of all that it states.

1 Peter 1:1-2
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure."​

Shoots-self-in-foot on that one my friend.

Were you expecting vs 3 to say "not really... just kidding"??

We were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God.

Yep... that is a huge problem for

Evidence says otherwise. Calvinism does not negate foreknowledge; it simply asserts God didn't use it as a basis for His purpose in salvation. .

Many called - few "chosen". ... "Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God" as it turns out.

 

[BobRyan]

Evidence says otherwise. Calvinism does not negate foreknowledge; it simply asserts God didn't use it as a basis for His purpose in salvation. .

Calvinism needs to write more scripture.

Because actual scripture says -- "according to His foreknowledge" instead of "apart from any access to foreknowledge" or "in spite of foreknowledge".

1 Peter 1:1-2 "who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God "

"Chosen but NOT according to the foreknowledge" of God is simply inserting a "NOT" into the text that we actually have in the Bible.

Now let's take a look at the WCF article to which you allude without giving the reader a specific reference. WCF 3.vi states

"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[m] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam,are redeemed by Christ,n are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,oand kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation.p Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only."​

That little "m" I left in there is a reference to 1 Pet. 1:1-2. .

What part of my post above (other than the signature line) was referencing WCF ... just out of curiosity

 

[BobRyan]

Remember this is currently all about the idea Arminianism is a volitionally open system for the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer.

As the OP reminds us - and as even Calvinism teaches - the supernatural drawing of God is more than sufficient to enable the lost to accept the Gospel.

And thankfully "God draws ALL mankind unto Him" John 12:32 for he is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance .. 2 Peter 3.

That is from the OP -- lets move to the part where we have response to it instead of circling back to the point where the OP is now "the answer" to the post.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Indeed - free will provides that level of independence between the act/thought/plan of sin and the Creator who enables free will.

Prove it.

Prove what?

1. The obvious fact that free will provides a layer of independence such that God is in no way the dictator of... or responsible for the thoughts and actions of the wicked? How is that not increadibly obvious. (Lets not get stuck on the easy part). Matt 23 "How I WANTED to spare your children.. but you would not") Matt 23

2. The idea that God is not responsible for the thoughts and actions of the wicked? The Bible already claims it as God laments "What more could I have done that I have not already done?" Isaiah 5:4

Another example of details already in the OP

Let me clarify that challenge. There was a time in history when two people once, for a very brief period, had the ability to will and act without the influence of sin

Indeed ... Adam and Even

But since then the way that all mankind is enabled to choose the Gospel is via the supernatural "Drawing of all mankind" to Him John 12:32.

It is completely incorrect to say free will provides "that level."

It is entirely correct to say that free will provides that level of independence that results in God not being the dictator-of or responsible-for wicked thoughts or wicked actions... of the lost.

You turned the order around, emphasizing free will independently of God. .

1. Not in any statement I have made.
2. Not in any quote of my statement that you have provided so far.

The fact that God enables all to choose the Gospel -- in no way makes God the dictator of all the evil thoughts and actions of the lost.

 

[Josheb]

Shoots-self-in-foot on that one my friend.

Were you expecting vs 3 to say "not really... just kidding"??

Yep... that is a huge problem for

Many called - few "chosen". ... "Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God" as it turns out.

Again, you are not thinking it through. The foreknowledge God did not use is the foreknowledge of how a person will act in the future. You are arguing a straw man.

You claim Calvinism says God didn't decide based on foreknowledge.
I show you where the WCF quite plainly states God did choose according to foreknowledge.
You ignore the evidence and repeat the baseless, now disproven claim.

That's not an argument for or against anything, Bob.


What is foreknowledge, according to you? How is it God attained such knowledge as foreknowledge?

 

[Phil W]

But, you don't sin. You need no atonement for your sins, as you have none, so I don't understand your need for Christ.

Wow, if all you need Jesus for is constant atonements you should read Heb 6:4-6.
I live and walk in Christ.
I use His name in every prayer.
He is my guide and Comfort.
He is my example and strength.

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. — Jesus

Some are healed by the Physician.
Thanks be to God!
It is the quacks who can't heal.

 

[Phil W]

Good point. That Gospel is about forgiveness of sin and as Romans 6 points out - freedom FROM sin.
I have seen some posts that make it appear that the Gospel is about rebellion-without-consequence as if the highest goal is rebellion against the Word of God.

Kinda sad...huh?

The Jews awaited a Savior to free them from the Romans, but a far worse tyrant had them by the throat.
That tyrant was sin.
Jesus was successful in His mission, conquering sin while in the flesh.
In Him, we too can be conquerors.
Thanks be to God !

 

[Josheb]

BobRyan said: ↑
Indeed - free will provides that level of independence between the act/thought/plan of sin and the Creator who enables free will.

Prove what?

1. The obvious fact that free will provides a layer of independence such that God is in no way the dictator of... or responsible for the thoughts and actions of the wicked? How is that not incredibly obvious. (Lets not get stuck on the easy part). Matt 23 "How I WANTED to spare your children.. but you would not") Matt 23

Matthew 23 verse says nothing about free will. You are reading free will into the text eisegetically. I asked you not to do so. Jesus is referencing the OT prophets wherein God stated they would not. That group about whom God was referring would not because they could not. Had they been different then God's prophesy would have been false. This is one of the limits on "free" will I listed previously (and you continue to ignore).

Bob, I posted that content partly so you could avoid those errors. If you know what I'm gong to criticize then you can avoid those mistakes. But what we're seeing is me helping you make a better case for your own position and you completely ignoring that aid and deliberately walking directly into what you should now know will be incorrect!

Why do that?

I respectfully submit to you the answer is ideology. You're more alleged to Arminianism than proper exegesis, more alleged to Arminianism than the objectively exegetical exhortation of a Cal. Why be that guy?

Ideology.

2. The idea that God is not responsible for the thoughts and actions of the wicked? The Bible already claims it as God laments "What more could I have done that I have not already done?" Isaiah 5:4

God could have done much more. His comment is rhetorical. We know this because God did in fact eventualy do much, much more.

Indeed ... Adam and Even

Adam and Eve were pre-disobedient examples. They are not examples of already-sinfully dead and enslaved people living in an already sinful world. You've made a false equivalency.

But since then the way that all mankind is enabled to choose the Gospel is via the supernatural "Drawing of all mankind" to Him John 12:32.

Irony. You just contradicted your appeal to Isa. 5:4. You've also undermined the premise the drawing is a matter of volition. It is a supernatural, not natural, drawing.

It is entirely correct to say that free will provides that level of independence that results in God not being the dictator-of or responsible-for wicked thoughts or wicked actions... of the lost.

Well, since all of the examples you've attempted to use to prove your claim have failed the claim itself fails.

Give it another try. I'm a patient man.

1. Not in any statement I have made.
2. Not in any quote of my statement that you have provided so far.

The evidence says otherwise.

The fact that God enables all to choose the Gospel -- in no way makes God the dictator of all the evil thoughts and actions of the lost.

Perfectly Calvinist. Perfectly monergist. Well done.


The problem is Arminius' version of that enabling is not found anywhere stated in scripture. Arminius hypothesized it. It is solely a function of eisegetic inference and not proper exegesis. You've just demonstrated that fact - four times! Every example you provided failed to properly exegete the proof-texted verse and involved assumptions nowhere reported in the verse or its surrounding text.