Where Arminianism Fails.

Josheb said:

I'll reply to the op-relevant content in that post when I have more time but for now I would like to note for the record that sentence I've just quoted is self-contradictory.

If Arminianism has strayed from what the Bible tells us about God and His sovereignty in saving someone from what is otherwise an incapacitating condition for the sinner then it is not practical.

Furthermore, sinners are culpable, not responsible. Having sinned they are no longer capable of coming to God on thier own. It is called "total depravity," and every single major soteriological model in Christendom has long- and woell-understood that concept and adhered to it. This means all those scripture verses and passages instructing the unrepentant to repent and believe are highlighting the incapacity of the sinner, not implying volitional liberty and power to be soteriologically responsive. And... as I have already noted, the vast majority of these passages are said to people already living in a covenant relationship with a God in Whom they already believe. Not a single one of those passages applies to the God-denier.

So: a single sentence that is 1) self-contradictory and 2) highlights a presuppositional failing of Arminianism.


I'll get back to the rest of the post later.

Click to expand...

Can't say I necessarily disagree, although just to clarify, I suppose I was just saying that present-day Arminianism tends to stray towards being pragmatic. Most Pelagian systems do tend to be pragmatic, pull-yourself-up-from-your-bootstraps sort of religions. In the sense you are criticising, yes it wouldn't be that practical if it wasn't the truth, but that's more in the abstract.

Yet it's a point well made.

Not that I really think Arminianism is at its heart a Pelagian system at all. That's why I will defend aspects of it as I think the caricatures thrown at it, such as "Arminians believe their works get them saved" or the like are actually more criticism thrown at Pelagian (or semi-Pelagian) thought than Arminian thought. At its original core, Arminianism is really semi-Augustinian. I would say that Dave and other critics here tend to criticise what they see as Arminian practice more than Arminian theology - but they probably haven't exposed themselves to the work of someone like F. Leroy Forelines, for example.

Dave, I disagree with your premise that one must be indwelled with the Holy Spirit in order to believe. This is contrary to scripture. There is only one verse that Calvinists can point to for this, and it is woefully mis-characterized.


Here are two salient passages we see the sequence specifically referred to as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit coming AFTER one has believed.

As you can see, the "gift" is the Holy Spirit. That gift is given AFTER we believe, not before.

Regarding this gift, Paul writes:


Of course Paul is quoting heavily regarding salvation through faith from Deuteronomy 30:


We know from Paul that Circumcision is the Old Testament shadow (or placeholder) for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


Knowing then that Circumcision represents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we can look to the first person saved by grace through faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, Abraham to see the example:


So we see that circumcision represents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is as Ephesians 1:13-14 says the "seal of the righteousness of faith" just as circumcision is the "seal of the righteousness of faith" for Abraham. Yet Paul describes REPEATEDLY and at every opportunity that Abraham was made righteous for his faith while uncircumcised -- while not indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

Regarding salvation by faith, Deuteronomy 30 continues:


If you recall, we just read from Paul in Romans 10 that these passages in Deuteronomy 30 speak regarding the righteousness based on faith, and he says "that is the word of faith we are preaching." Regarding that faith, scripture tells us that "it is not too difficult for you" (as Calvinism would have you believe) and that the choice is not made in heaven (as Calvinism would have you believe). It says regarding the righteousness based on faith "it is not in heaven that you should say who will get it for us and make us hear it." It says regarding the word of faith, "it is near to you ... in your mouth and in your heart"... note it does not say in God's mouth and in God's heart. It is not in heaven.

The verse Calvinism misquotes to justify their premise is Ephesians 2:8:


However, what is clear is that the word "YOU" is the subject and "HAVE BEEN SAVED" is the predicate of the verse. The clauses "by grace" and "through faith" are supporting clauses of the main subject "You have been saved." So when it continues "that not of yourselves, IT is the gift of God" we know that the IT referred to is the subject of the previous sentence, not the supporting clauses. IT refers to the phrase "you have been saved" not to the clause "by faith." The IT is salvation, not faith. Salvation is the gift of God, not faith.

HatGuy said:

Can't say I necessarily disagree, although just to clarify, I suppose I was just saying that present-day Arminianism tends to stray towards being pragmatic. Most Pelagian systems do tend to be pragmatic, pull-yourself-up-from-your-bootstraps sort of religions.

Click to expand...

Again: I disagree. The reason I disagree is because "systems" that say, "pull-yourself-up-from-your-bootstraps sort" are not "pragmatic. It is self-contradictory. In this case it is also not a fair presentation of Arminnianism. Arminianism is not Pelagian. Many self-styled Arminians are in fact Pelagian and don't know it but Arminianism and Pelagianism are not the same. Similarly, many Wesleyans incorrectly imagine themselves Arminian when they are not.

As I have already stated, Arms and Weses both agree on total depravity. Their soteriologies say God changes a person sufficiently so as to enable them to choose Him. They do not believe sinful unaided humans can or do come to God independently of God.

And I have already touched on how and why that is still a problematic position.

HatGuy said:

In the sense you are criticising, yes it wouldn't be that practical if it wasn't the truth, but that's more in the abstract.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. That position would have real-life objectively observable consequences - as I have already noted - and that non-abstract reality is not being addressed.

Which if another failing of Arminiainism (it does not and cannot address concerns logically arising from their own position where Calvinism has an answer).

HatGuy said:

Yet it's a point well made.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It's an important point; one that should give any volitionalist pause.

HatGuy said:

Not that I really think Arminianism is at its heart a Pelagian system at all. That's why I will defend aspects of it as I think the caricatures thrown at it, such as "Arminians believe their works get them saved" or the like are actually more criticism thrown at Pelagian (or semi-Pelagian) thought than Arminian thought.

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at that because Arminians redefine works so as to attempt an evasion from the works element of their soteriology. They say belief is not a work. Some split hairs bweteen belief and faith and argue neither are works. Since belief/faith must be operationalized into some form of commitment, such as a verbal confession or professing of Christ as Lord it is, in fact, a work.

So denying the pre-salvation work element in volitionalism is...... another failing in Arminianism.

HatGuy said:

At its original core, Arminianism is really semi-Augustinian.

Click to expand...

Not sure what specifically is intended there but in general I agree and I believe I quoted Arminius quoting Augustine in reference to Arminius' belief in total depravity.

HatGuy said:

I would say that Dave and other critics here tend to criticise what they see as Arminian practice more than Arminian theology - but they probably haven't exposed themselves to the work of someone like F. Leroy Forelines, for example.

Click to expand...

?????

I encourage you to have a little more respect for your fellow posters. First, what you've done is make an appeal to authority. Second, you've assumed Doug and others have not read Forline. Although I'm not in CF often and my current furay is only a few months old those who argue soteriology in other Christian forums are often the most diversely read and articulate of posters with whom I've ever had the privilege to trade posts. Third, if your own posts are any measure you should aspire to Dave's acumen. Fourth, if you're going to post indictments like that then it is incumbent upon you to evidence that position.

Most importantly though, while Forlines book, "Classical Arminiainism," is generally recognized as an excellent presentation of classical Arminianism, the simple fact is anywhere he either 1) departs from Arminius' views or 2) neglects some of the problems listed in this op and fails to adequately address them..... then he is wrong.

This is why I don't post quotes from the likes of Olson, Ashby, or Forlines, even having read them, preferring instead to go to the sources themselves, as I have already done in this op. If I quote Arminius and link everyone to the source so it can be verified he wasn't quote-mined than I have no need of Forlines.

All of those problems stand on their own, solely within the Arminian paradigm. There is the additional problem of misrepresenting Calvinism invariably found in volitionalists' arguments. That's why it is important to keep this op about the failing(s) of Arminianism and resist the impulse of tu quoque arguments. Proving Calvinism incorrect doesn't prove Arminianism correct. Until the Arms show up with scriptural proof and rational cases resolving these failings it is a soteriology that does not withstand critical examination as measured by correctly-rendered scripture and reason.

I don't know how many Arms there are in this Forum but it is evident none have shown up to address the failings listed so far. Certainly no refutation has occurred.

Gup20 said:

Dave, I disagree with your premise that one must be indwelled with the Holy Spirit in order to believe. This is contrary to scripture. There is only one verse that Calvinists can point to for this, and it is woefully mis-characterized.

Click to expand...

You do understand that nearly every single mention of belief in the epistolary is necesarily about the regenerate, yes?

Yo might want to drop that "only one" claim because it is not correct. Every verse in the epistolary talking about the belief/faith of the those in the body of Christ testifies to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in order to belief.

Gup20 said:

As you can see, the "gift" is the Holy Spirit. That gift is given AFTER we believe, not before.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy.

Belief is a gift given prior to during and throughout conversion and salvation. To select a verse that supports an already existing position and ignore both the whole of scripture and the logically necessary implications of that selective use is called eisegesis, not exegesis.

Furthermore, the the gift of the Holy Spirit comes in many forms and the only one of concern here is that of the point of conversion or regeneration. The disciples had a gifting of the Holy Spirit when they went out into the surrounding villages to preach, heal and cast out but that was not the same indwelling they experienced at Pentecost. Note that prior to Pentecost they had already believed in the resurrection and were saved. Had one of them died prior to Pentecost they would have received eternal life. The repentant theif was told he'd be with Jesus that day in paradise. Can you make the case for his being in paradise unregenerate? Can you make the case he made his profession of faith from his sinful flesh not empowered by the Spirit? If that is you position then you will have a variety of consequent matters to address (already stated in prior posts), such as the ability of still-sinful flesh to come to God salvifically... which Arminius denied was possible.

Gup20 said:

Dave, I disagree with your premise that one must be indwelled with the Holy Spirit in order to believe. This is contrary to scripture. There is only one verse that Calvinists can point to for this, and it is woefully mis-characterized.

Click to expand...

Yes, for what its worth the historical view on this is that the HS works within man to move him towards God, towards conversion, accepting God's offer, trusting in Christ at which time we're justified. We cannot do that on our own. And yet the indwelling does not occur until we do accept, until we agree to cohabit with God ourselves. We can't say "yes" without grace, but we can still say "no" to it -at any time.

Gup20 said:

We know from Paul that Circumcision is the Old Testament shadow (or placeholder) for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit...

Click to expand...

The problem, Gup20, is that your entire post ignores the non-covenantal non-believer. Everything you've posted is text that occurs within one of two different forms of a like condition: the covenant relationship.

In order to use scripture to speak of salvation as it pertains to those living outside of an already-existing covenant relationship with God you have very little of the Biblical text from which to work. One of the single most fatal and single most often occurring errors in exegesis on the Arminian side of the debate is the practice of taking texts written by covenant believers to covenant believers about covenant believers and trying to apply them to the pagan non-believer living outside of an existing covenant relationship established by God.

All of the Bible's covenants were initiated by God.

God didn't ask a single one of those individuals or groups if they wanted the covenant until after the covenant was already established.

Every single one of those folks was a person who already believed! in God. They cannot and should not be compared to those who deny God's existence.

In other words, you've got a fatal presuppositional flaw at the foundation of the entire post.

Gup20 said:

The verse Calvinism misquotes to justify their premise is Ephesians 2:8:

[Eph 2:8 NASB] 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;​

However, what is clear is that the word "YOU" is the subject and "HAVE BEEN SAVED" is the predicate of the verse. The clauses "by grace" and "through faith" are supporting clauses of the main subject "You have been saved." So when it continues "that not of yourselves, IT is the gift of God" we know that the IT referred to is the subject of the previous sentence, not the supporting clauses. IT refers to the phrase "you have been saved" not to the clause "by faith." The IT is salvation, not faith. Salvation is the gift of God, not faith.

Click to expand...

No, Cals do not misquote Ephesians 2:5-10.

You've just argued a false dichotomy.

The salvation that is by grace through faith is not of yourself. That means the consitiuent elements of that salvation - the "by" and the "through" - are not of yourself. There's nothing in the text indicating these are separately existing conditions. In other words, there are no "clauses" soteriologically. You've made an exegetical error of false equivalency incorrectly imagining a linguistic clause is the same as a conditional clause. They are not. We necessarily understand this because there is no salvation without both. There is not faith without grace. And most importantly there is no causality ever assigned to fleshly faith anywhere in the entirety of the Bible explicitly stated or asserted through precedent.

Yes, the "it" is salvation, but that salvation is necessarily and extricable by grace through faith and not of yourself.

The human-centric volitionalist incorrectly separates grace from faith and says the grace is from God but the faith is from the still-unregenerate sinner. That isn't even good Arminiainism.

HatGuy said:

Can't say I necessarily disagree, although just to clarify, I suppose I was just saying that present-day Arminianism tends to stray towards being pragmatic. Most Pelagian systems do tend to be pragmatic, pull-yourself-up-from-your-bootstraps sort of religions. In the sense you are criticising, yes it wouldn't be that practical if it wasn't the truth, but that's more in the abstract.

Click to expand...

Pelagianism teaches that man has righteousness on his own, such that he can obey and earn salvation by his own efforts. Semi-pelagianism teaches that man can initially will rightly without God's help, without grace, and so turn to Him in faith on his own- and from there God justifies and indwells him. I don't know any Christian churches or denominations that teach either offhand.

fhansen said:

Pelagianism teaches that man has righteousness on his own, such that he can obey and earn salvation by his own efforts. Semi-pelagianism teaches that man can initially will rightly without God's help, without grace, and so turn to Him in faith on his own- and from there God justifies and indwells him. I don't know any Christian churches or denominations that teach either offhand.

Click to expand...

Eastern Orthodox openly claim to be semi-pelagian.

HatGuy said:

Eastern Orthodox openly claim to be semi-pelagian.

Click to expand...

Ok, haven't heard that before and would welcome commentary-it sounds a bit questionable to be honest.

Dave L said:

No, you can exercise it and develop it. But it is of the Holy Spirit not the flesh.

Click to expand...

If you can develop it, that is you doing something for your salvation, you pelagian, you.

Josheb said:

Let's take a look at that because Arminians redefine works so as to attempt an evasion from the works element of their soteriology. They say belief is not a work. Some split hairs bweteen belief and faith and argue neither are works. Since belief/faith must be operationalized into some form of commitment, such as a verbal confession or professing of Christ as Lord it is, in fact, a work.

So denying the pre-salvation work element in volitionalism is...... another failing in Arminianism.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that classifying faith as not a work is a biblical classification. Faith is a relational thing while work is not, unless that work is done out of faith. (It is based in relationship.) John 6:29 is probably the only verse I know that could indicate faith as a work, yet it appears it is God's work and not ours. Which I think Classical Arminians and Calvinists at least agree with.

Josheb said:

?????

I encourage you to have a little more respect for your fellow posters. First, what you've done is make an appeal to authority. Second, you've assumed Doug and others have not read Forline. Although I'm not in CF often and my current furay is only a few months old those who argue soteriology in other Christian forums are often the most diversely read and articulate of posters with whom I've ever had the privilege to trade posts. Third, if your own posts are any measure you should aspire to Dave's acumen. Fourth, if you're going to post indictments like that then it is incumbent upon you to evidence that position.

Click to expand...

You're taking this too personally. I was merely wondering out loud if the likes of Dave and others have sufficiently read alternative arguments from respected sources. If they have, I would expect their conversation to be more nuanced - like yours is. Unfortunately, it often appears it isn't. I'm glad that you happily come to their defense and accuse my posts of lacking acumen. Touche. But I've learned not to take these forums too seriously - as I imagine Dave has too, which is probably why he tends to be cryptic and often answers lengthy posts with one sentence (which can be irritating, but also amusing).

Josheb said:

Most importantly though, while Forlines book, "Classical Arminiainism," is generally recognized as an excellent presentation of classical Arminianism, the simple fact is anywhere he either 1) departs from Arminius' views or 2) neglects some of the problems listed in this op and fails to adequately address them..... then he is wrong.

Click to expand...

On (1), I expect every theologian to have their own idiosyncrasies and disagreements. That's why God gave us them, so we can make up our own minds too.

On (2), I think if any theologian fails to address every problem under the sun in one book then he is probably quite human.

Josheb said:

This is why I don't post quotes from the likes of Olson, Ashby, or Forlines, even having read them, preferring instead to go to the sources themselves, as I have already done in this op. If I quote Arminius and link everyone to the source so it can be verified he wasn't quote-mined than I have no need of Forlines.

Click to expand...

I like it!

Josheb said:

All of those problems stand on their own, solely within the Arminian paradigm. There is the additional problem of misrepresenting Calvinism invariably found in volitionalists' arguments. That's why it is important to keep this op about the failing(s) of Arminianism and resist the impulse of tu quoque arguments. Proving Calvinism incorrect doesn't prove Arminianism correct.

Click to expand...

I agree, but remember, there is equal misrepresentation happening both ways - including in this very thread.

Josheb said:

Until the Arms show up with scriptural proof and rational cases resolving these failings it is a soteriology that does not withstand critical examination as measured by correctly-rendered scripture and reason.

I don't know how many Arms there are in this Forum but it is evident none have shown up to address the failings listed so far. Certainly no refutation has occurred.

Click to expand...

I have the advantage of objectivity in this argument to a degree, as I'm not fully Arminian (and certainly not Calvinist). This to me, however, comes across as a biased view. But at any rate, I won't argue the point further. It's no use.

fhansen said:

Ok, haven't heard that before and would welcome commentary-it sounds a bit questionable to be honest.

Click to expand...

Apologies, I remembered reading an official Orthodox site some time back where they openly claimed to be semi-pelagian, but I can't find that reference, and a quick search now reveals this to be something many Orthodox deny. So without a source I can't back that up, and take it back .

fhansen said:

Yes, for what its worth the historical view on this is that the HS works within man to move him towards God, towards conversion, accepting God's offer, trusting in Christ at which time we're justified. We cannot do that on our own. And yet the indwelling does not occur until we do accept, until we agree to cohabit with God ourselves. We can't say "yes" without grace, but we can still say "no" to it -at any time.

Click to expand...

Where are the people who were moved towards God, understood the offer and said "No." Should be scores of them mentioned in scripture and millions of them around the world for us in modern times to observe.

HatGuy said:

Apologies, I remembered reading an official Orthodox site some time back where they openly claimed to be semi-pelagian, but I can't find that reference, and a quick search now reveals this to be something many Orthodox deny. So without a source I can't back that up, and take it back .

Click to expand...

Yes-it can be hard to get straight answers sometimes from an authoritative church source-and individuals can be in error on their church's teaching of course.

HatGuy said:

Eastern Orthodox openly claim to be semi-pelagian.

Click to expand...

The Orthodox position on sin and salvation is substantively different than that found in the west. The Orthodox view sin more as an illness and salvation akin to healing. It is in this context that an ill person can act collaboratively with God to be healed but they do not believe an individual can heal himself from the sickness of sin. So, yes, it is indicative of the same argument the semi-pels make but it's an apples and oranges difference in paradigm. The Orthos reject the inherent legal nature of western soteriology.

Josheb said:

Where are the people who were moved towards God, understood the offer and said "No." Should be scores of them mentioned in scripture and millions of them around the world for us in modern times to observe.

Click to expand...

Any who've heard and understood the message and rejected it-either at the beginning or later on in their walk.
"Nevertheless, many of the leaders believed in Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. For they loved praise from men more than praise from God." John 12

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age— and then have fallen away—to be restored again to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame." Heb 6

There may be millions of them.

HatGuy said:

It seems to me that classifying faith as not a work is a biblical classification. Faith is a relational thing while work is not, unless that work is done out of faith. (It is based in relationship.)

Click to expand...

Ralationships are work.

HatGuy said:

John 6:29 is probably the only verse I know that could indicate faith as a work, yet it appears it is God's work and not ours. Which I think Classical Arminians and Calvinists at least agree with.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is God's work, not it is not Classical Arminianism and I have already explained how. You've just repeated the exact argument I corrected: redefining faith so it isn't a work; it's just a thing that isn't a work, it's a relationship.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

HatGuy said:

You're taking this too personally.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....

You can tel me what I am and am not taking personally but it's not personal.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it, because when you tell others whet they are or are not doing you have made it personal.

HatGuy said:

I was merely wondering out loud if the likes of Dave and others have sufficiently read alternative arguments from respected sources.

Click to expand...

"the likes of Dave?"

What is it you think you know about the likes of Dave?

HatGuy said:

I was merely wondering out loud if the likes of Dave and others have sufficiently read alternative arguments from respected sources.

Click to expand...

And I was merely responding to the erroneous aspects of those wonderings. In response I've received a lot of content about the posters and nothing about the op-relevant content in the post.

Posts, not posters, HatGuy.

HatGuy said:

If they have, I would expect their conversation to be more nuanced - like yours is.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. If they'd read respected sources they'd post like me.

But it's not personal, you're just wondering.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

HatGuy said:

Unfortunately, it often appears it isn't.

Click to expand...

When I read evidence indicating what the posters here have not read I'll consider that evidence but I think you're going to have a difficult time proving a negative about people you've never met while ignoring the substance of their posts.

HatGuy said:

I'm glad that you happily come to their defense and accuse my posts of lacking acumen. Touche. But I've learned not to take these forums too seriously..

Click to expand...

There's little evidence the discussion was taken seriously at all. There's little evidence the posters themselves were taken seriously given the assumption they haven't "read alternative arguments from respected source," when the more reasonable and rational conclusion given the facts already evidence is that it is because alternative arguments from respected sources were in fact read that they can and do make the cases they have asserted.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

HatGuy said:

On (1), I expect every theologian to have their own idiosyncrasies and disagreements. That's why God gave us them, so we can make up our own minds too.

Click to expand...

And when they attempt to make cases in support of another's position they should do so accurately portraying that source's position. To do otherwise is called a straw man. Every theologian arguing a straw man, no matter how idiosyncratic (or not), should be ignored and most definitely not be used as a fallacious appeal to authority ignoring the source s/he's supposedly supporting.

HatGuy said:

On (2), I think if any theologian fails to address every problem under the sun in one book then he is probably quite human.

Click to expand...

There's only one topic being asserted in this op and you've managed to make the discussion about people, not topic.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

HatGuy said:

I like it!

Click to expand...

Then that is all that needs saying in response.

HatGuy said:

I agree, but remember, there is equal misrepresentation happening both ways - including in this very thread.

Click to expand...

Tu quoque is fallacious. You should take the discussion at least serious nough so as not to post fallaciously, especially if there's an expectation to be taken with commensurate seriousness.

Please look at what you write...

HatGuy said:

I have the advantage of objectivity in this argument to a degree, as I'm not fully Arminian (and certainly not Calvinist). This to me, however, comes across as a biased view. But at any rate, I won't argue the point further. It's no use.

Click to expand...

That is not objectivity.

Most Cals here were former Arms or Weses. It is because of an objective appraisal we became Cals.

You are correct about one thing: you don't take these discussions very seriously, certainly neither the portion you or others contribute. Profile page says you've been in CF over five years. That's long enough to know how DBs work. It's also long enough to develop healthy boundaries because there's nothing in internet forums I find particularly important but that doesn't mean I don't take others and their positions seriously. False dichotomy.

Please look at what you write...



Now... if you have something op-relevant to post about something read in this op then I'm all eyes, otherwise the it's evident that op-relvant content is being ignored in favor of digression.

Josheb said:

You do understand that nearly every single mention of belief in the epistolary is necesarily about the regenerate, yes?

Click to expand...

The whole of scripture is about the regenerate in the same sense. However, that information isn't helpful for the discussion we are having here regarding the Calvinistic doctrine (which is not supported by scripture) that faith comes after in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Yo might want to drop that "only one" claim because it is not correct. Every verse in the epistolary talking about the belief/faith of the those in the body of Christ testifies to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in order to belief.

Click to expand...

Yet... You did't quote any for the purposes of our discussion.

False dichotomy.

Belief is a gift given prior to during and throughout conversion and salvation. To select a verse that supports an already existing position and ignore both the whole of scripture and the logically necessary implications of that selective use is called eisegesis, not exegesis.

Click to expand...

I'm open discussing the verses you have in mind that are as salient to the sequencing in question. I've shared two that discuss sequencing with terms like "after" and show that indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes after faith in sequence. Where are the ones you can point to which specifically mention the sequencing of faith and indwelling of the Holy Spirit as these two verses do but show that faith comes after indwelling?

If that is you position then you will have a variety of consequent matters to address (already stated in prior posts), such as the ability of still-sinful flesh to come to God salvifically... which Arminius denied was possible.

Click to expand...

Arminius and Calvin made the same, fatally flawed assumption regarding faith and salvation. This error is the root of why the debate between them has raged for hundreds of years without resolution; both of them are wrong. Both are critically mistaken in the identical assumption that faith and righteousness have a direct relationship. They do not. The relationship between faith and righteousness is in fact, indirect. Faith qualifies us to join the elect group known as "the descendants of Abraham." Subsequently, all members of that group have been promised (by God) to inherit the righteousness given to Abraham. God promised Abraham and his descendants would inherit that righteousness, so it is God's promise to Abraham which motives God to make the members of the elect group righteous, not their faith. Calvin recognized this fact when he wrote of said of God’s predestined elect, “God has attested this not only in individual persons, but has given us an example of it in the whole offspring of Abraham." However, he failed to realize that all who are saved are saved by becoming members of that elect group. That group has 'open enrollment' based on faith. Faith, therefore, qualifies us for human adoption. Human adoption doesn't require regeneration, therefore it logically follows that one doesn't require regeneration to have faith.

The problem, Gup20, is that your entire post ignores the non-covenantal non-believer. Everything you've posted is text that occurs within one of two different forms of a like condition: the covenant relationship.

In order to use scripture to speak of salvation as it pertains to those living outside of an already-existing covenant relationship with God you have very little of the Biblical text from which to work. One of the single most fatal and single most often occurring errors in exegesis on the Arminian side of the debate is the practice of taking texts written by covenant believers to covenant believers about covenant believers and trying to apply them to the pagan non-believer living outside of an existing covenant relationship established by God.

All of the Bible's covenants were initiated by God.

God didn't ask a single one of those individuals or groups if they wanted the covenant until after the covenant was already established.

Every single one of those folks was a person who already believed! in God. They cannot and should not be compared to those who deny God's existence.

In other words, you've got a fatal presuppositional flaw at the foundation of the entire post.

Click to expand...

I actually came to the conclusions I have based on studying the covenants. As I have described earlier in this post, I do not support Armenianism -- and for the same reason I do not support Calvinism. Both assume faith and righteousness are direct.


So we see that the gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16) was preached by God to Abraham, and when Abraham believed, he was made righteous. Then God promises that this would be an everlasting inheritance by all of Abraham's descendants. One way to qualify as a descenant is to be of the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham was.

The salvation that is by grace through faith is not of yourself

Click to expand...

. That means the consitiuent elements of that salvation - the "by" and the "through" - are not of yourself. There's nothing in the text indicating these are separately existing conditions.

Click to expand...

It is unwarranted to extend the meaning of the latter description to the supporting clauses without the specific instruction by the context to do so. In the case of Ephesians 2, there is no specific reason to warrant that inclusion. For example, I could have said,