Where Arminianism Fails.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is the law condemning them?
Often it is condemning them... but Paul is specifically calling out the good that an unsaved person does and why; "When Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law..."
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't disagree....but I don't think Satan has the ability to keep someone from being regenerated by God.
People have the ability to keep themselves from being regenerated by listening to the enemy instead of surrendering to the Spirit. I'm convinced some people are under conviction for much of their lives but never give in.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,197
837
NoVa
✟166,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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...
You are wrong onall three accounts.

1) Scripture is about Christ, not Christians and very little of its text is specifically about the nono-regenerate. When you acknowledge the Bible is wholly about the regenerate and then try to argue for a soteriology concerning the not-yet regenerate (as Arminianism is), then you are contradicting your own position.

2) This information is in fact helpful and the fact that you've just gone on record stating otherwise disqualifies you from having anything informed to say on the matter.

3) This op is not about "the Calvinistic doctrine." This op is about and only about Arminianism and its failings. You don't get to come into the op and hijack it for your personal agenda and not have that noted as such.

If you can stick to the stated topic = "Where Arminianism Fails," then your own content will be "helpful for the discussion." Otherwise, your posts are off-topic.


The salient points of conversation relevant to this op are the premises sinfully dead slaves cannot and do not choose to believe unless saved by Arminianism says the not-yet saved can and do believe. In addition, there are no examples of non-believers ever doing so nor scripture ever explicitly reporting any such causality in anyone previously denying God. The precedent is always either one of intellectual assent, covenant relationship, or those already regenerate in Christ but the Arminian will invariably seek to use those groups as a basis for making attributions about the sinfully dead and enslaved who deny God. The soteriology creates a condition in which it is reasonable to ask about the intermediate state wherein God has worked in the individual to save him but that stops short of doing so 1) making Himself and His plan dependent upon the yet-unregenerate sinner, and 2) creating the prospect where God reveals Himself to a person and changes that person to liberty of choice only to have the now-freed sinner decline and walk away in the liberated but denying state, all based on an inference-based eisegetic reading of scripture that repeatedly violates the long- and well-established rules of sound exegesis.

I know that's a lot and the Arm is on the defensive in this op but that is the topic of this op. If you can engage any of that then please do so but please don't change the subject or practice any of the likely errors already mentioned in this discussion. They were broached to help Arminians avoid them. We Cals want you to show up with something better than the same repeated errors of exegesis and logic.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,197
837
NoVa
✟166,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is the easiest argument in the world to refute. Watch:

Yes. It does. #BOOM #ArgumentRefuted #WonTheArgument.
Childish.

The difference between us, Gup, is that I refute the post with evidence both scriptural and logical and you ignore that content. The difference between us is that I don't proof-text scripture but instead consider whole scripture in its many contexts both local and global and you do the opposite.

So when snide comments like the above are posted following what has already transpired, the snide comments say more about you then anyone or anything else.

In this particular case the two single verses quoted were shown 1) to have been proof-texted, and 2) to say something much different when considered in their stated contexts.
This is what is called a strawman argument. You have assumed as true that which you seek to prove and used that assumption as your basis for proof.
That is not what a straw man is, Gup. A straw man occurs when a misrepresentation is argued against. It was you who misrepresented the Deuteronomy text. You did so by proof-texting a single verse and ignoring its surrounding passage.

Deuteronomy 30 occurs in the context of a covenant established before any of the people in the Deuteronomy 30 audience were even born! The covenant with Abraham of which God is speaking was initiated by God hundreds of years before anyone in Dt. 30 was born. The Sinai covenant through Moses was also initiated by God and also initiated without asking anyone if they wanted God to do so.

1) God initiated the covenant.
2) God initiated the covenant without asking consent.
3) It was only after they were within the covenant were they asked.​

Until you come to terms with the soteriological relevance of those three truths you won't be forming an intelligent response. Until those three truths are addressed the previous poroof-texting of Dt, 30:19 fails.

You don't get to jump around from verse to verse to verse to verse and expect to be taken seriously.

You brought up Dt. 3019.
I dealt with it demonstrating the proof-texting failed.
You did not address the matter; you instead attempted to change verses to be discussed.​

And Adam was not in an uncovenanted state! You've - once again - displayed an amazing lackof knowledge about scripture.

So either stick to the topic of the op - which is about Arminiainsim not Calvinism, or deal with the error you made regarding Dt. 30:19. No one will have any trust you can have a cogent conversation if you prove unwilling or unable to discuss your own content incrementally. No one will have any trust you can have a cogent conversation if you don't won't can't stay on topic.

It's reall simple: just keep the words, "Calvin," "Calvinism," and "Calvinists" out of your posts and stick to "Arminius," "Arminianism," and "Arminianists."

This op is about the where Arminianism fails. Nothing more.

You said Dt. 30:19 evidences Arminian soteriolgy but an exegetical examination of the proof-texted verse proves the exact opposite and you are not dealing with that fact.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,197
837
NoVa
✟166,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because there is a real spiritual war going on, and people fall for Satan's distractions.
What happens if a God-denying unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved person doesn't "fall for satan's distractions"?
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are wrong onall three accounts.

1) Scripture is about Christ, not Christians and very little of its text is specifically about the nono-regenerate. When you acknowledge the Bible is wholly about the regenerate and then try to argue for a soteriology concerning the not-yet regenerate (as Arminianism is), then you are contradicting your own position.
Since you don't present any evidence for your claim, it can be easily dismissed as your opinion. How many of the Old Testament Israelites were regenerated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Was scripture not written to them or for them? How often did Paul preach to unbelieving Gentiles (such as Romans, Galatians, or Corinthians)? Do you suppose he didn't talk about scripture? Or did he quote it non-stop to them?

2) This information is in fact helpful and the fact that you've just gone on record stating otherwise disqualifies you from having anything informed to say on the matter.
Since your position is not based on evidence, nor the Bible, it stands to reason you made up your mind before reading my post anyway and that no argument would have the potential to persuade you... not even one made by Christ Himself.

3) This op is not about "the Calvinistic doctrine." This op is about and only about Arminianism and its failings. You don't get to come into the op and hijack it for your personal agenda and not have that noted as such.
""The basic claim Arminians make is "You must choose to believe in order to be saved". But you must already believe [have the Holy Spirit] or you would not choose to believe. And Jesus says whoever believes has eternal life. So choosing to believe is a quasi repentance that leads to true repentance.""

One sentence regarding Arminian belief, and 3 sentences to promote Calvinistic belief. Make no mistake, 3/4 of the OP was about Calvinistic dogma. The fact that you would intentionally mischaracterize this is par for the course with your posts. How can anyone here trust your willingness to discuss things in good faith when you make overt falsehoods rather than substantive arguments?
you can stick to the stated topic = "Where Arminianism Fails," then your own content will be "helpful for the discussion." Otherwise, your posts are off-topic.
I will refer you to post #382 where I stated that Arminianism and Calvinism have the same, fatal flaw... both make the same incorrect assumption which renders both theories incorrect and for the same reason.

The salient points of conversation relevant to this op are the premises sinfully dead slaves cannot and do not choose to believe unless saved by Arminianism says the not-yet saved can and do believe. In addition, there are no examples of non-believers ever doing so nor scripture ever explicitly reporting any such causality in anyone previously denying God. The precedent is always either one of intellectual assent, covenant relationship, or those already regenerate in Christ but the Arminian will invariably seek to use those groups as a basis for making attributions about the sinfully dead and enslaved who deny God.
And I quoted Genesis 3 and Romans 2 to demonstrate this as incorrect. You failed to counter that argument with anything but conjecture and dogmatic opinion.

The soteriology creates a condition in which it is reasonable to ask about the intermediate state wherein God has worked in the individual to save him but that stops short of doing so 1) making Himself and His plan dependent upon the yet-unregenerate sinner, and 2) creating the prospect where God reveals Himself to a person and changes that person to liberty of choice only to have the now-freed sinner decline and walk away in the liberated but denying state, all based on an inference-based eisegetic reading of scripture that repeatedly violates the long- and well-established rules of sound exegesis.
Once again, you have assumed the conclusion in spite of the evidence and presented no actual arguments to support your case. The Biblical evidence I presented 1) makes God's plan dependent and motivated by His own Word and promise to Abraham that all of Abraham's descendants would inherit the everlasting covenant... even those from the "many nations" he would be father to. 2) defining life and death as a choice and telling that fallen being to choose does nothing to harm the soverignty of God, but it establishes it to a higher degree. 3) you have yet to quote a single scripture in any of our conversations, so your opinions on exegesis are irrelevant and disingenuous.

I know that's a lot and the Arm is on the defensive in this op but that is the topic of this op. If you can engage any of that then please do so but please don't change the subject or practice any of the likely errors already mentioned in this discussion. They were broached to help Arminians avoid them. We Cals want you to show up with something better than the same repeated errors of exegesis and logic.

Though I am neither Calvinistic or Arminian... yet none of you "cals" will engage in any substantive discussion. I presented much scripture to support my claims, and all of it stands as of yet completely untouched and unrefuted. In fact, you have no room to even process it or think about refuting it... for understanding it would be devastating to your fragile, Calvinistic belief system.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,180
5,695
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
it demonstrates that you're not seeking a balanced view, you're only seeking a view that agrees with your position through fringe translations. A balanced view may address these concerns but it shouldn't ignore the vastly dominate way the passage is translated which would be irresponsible. This also is only looking at translations, didn't you want to talk about Greek?
I'm not following your last sentence.

Also, fringe translations are often useful; the whole of Scripture does not disagree with any one part of it. But I did answer your post with another of my own. I don't claim that verse needs to apply how I did it in this post --I just pointed it out because it may be valid.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Site Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,197
837
NoVa
✟166,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If faith is a work, Paul was one messed up dude and we might as well do away with Galatians.
Anyone can post one-liners dissent and vainly imagine it forms a cogent case for something when in fact it is baseless nonsense.


Prove faith isn't a work.
Prove Paul believed otherwise.
Prove if Paul did believe faith was a work he was "one messed up dude."
Provide a single example from Galatians that talks about the faith of the unregenerate.
Provide a single example in Galatians where faith is mentioned absent any corresponding behavioral manifestation of that faith.

Otherwise, the righteous shall live by faith (Gal. 2:20) and the unrighteous will not live at all. Everyone was shut up under sin and kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed (Gal. 3:22-26). In other words, faith is revealed, not inherent in the dead sinner. We were all previously shut up to the faith and shut up under sin, but Arminianism says God works in the shut up person just enough to allow that person to have faith before being freed from the sin that shuts him up from that faith. The promise by faith in Jesus Christ given to those who believe (Gal. 3:22) but there's no record of any unregenerate believing in the God he denies exists.

This is the failing of Arminianism.

An no snide single-line dissent changes the truth of scripture.




Now, can you provide evidence for the five concerns directly related to your comment or not? Just let me know whether I should or should not have any expectation you can make a case for baseless comments bearing your handle.


Galatians 5:2-6
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love."

Faith performs work. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions and neither Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, nor Arminius taught otherwise.

Paul wrote about justification by faith, not salvation by faith. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that states we are saved by faith.

James 2:17-18
"Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'"

So when the Arminian asserts God is waiting for the unregenerate sinner to believe, that Arminiain is saying God is waiting for that dead and enslaved unregenerate sinner to demonstrate or operationalize his faith from the sinfully dead and enslaved and still not yet regenerate state.

The faith discussed in Galatians is all about the regenerate, not the unregenerate.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,180
5,695
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If humans cannot help but sin because God predetermined that such should be the case, then He's the direct cause, or author, of all sin. Willing/causing sin/evil is different from allowing it, for a time, for His purposes.
That's human logic at work again. We draw conclusions the Bible does not. What do we know of the difference between God CAUSING, and God being the AUTHOR OF? If God says he is not the author of sin, then he is not --in spite of our jumping to conclusions.

I have a tendency to agree with those who call it parsing, to argue as Edwards does, below, yet he is correct. Sin is the breaking of the perfect law of God. God does not tempt us. We tempt ourselves, or others entice us, or Satan tempts us. (Use the fall of Adam for an example of this). God in providing the opportunity to sin is not the tempter. Sin is not a creation, but a rebellion against God. (This also gives insight into a view of the Reformed position concerning free will or choice in Soteriology. God is not the one who fails to save --we are the ones that reject his offer).

Is God the Author of Sin? Jonathan Edwards' Answer

Edwards answers, “If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.”

But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”

God is, Edwards says, “the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,180
5,695
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Paul wrote about justification by faith, not salvation by faith. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that states we are saved by faith.
No, it doesn't say BY faith, but through faith. And it is an important distinction --however, I do hope you are referring to simple human faith there. Salvific Faith, on the other hand, is indeed how we are saved, and it is, as Reformed Theology is adamant about, the work of GOD IN US, and not of human origin. "By" or "through" is a ticklish difference with that in mind. Parsing doesn't look good to an argument, even when it is right.

Otherwise, without closer reading of your entire post, I think I agree wholeheartedly with you. Well put.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,944
3,539
✟323,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That's human logic at work again. We draw conclusions the Bible does not. What do we know of the difference between God CAUSING, and God being the AUTHOR OF? If God says he is not the author of sin, then he is not --in spite of our jumping to conclusions.
It's not a matter of jumping to conclusions. Plausible conclusions can be arrived at via
scripture on both sides of this coin. But the church has never taught double presentation or the total absence whatsoever of man's will playing some role in his being justified. The gospel and "salvation history" is reduced to nonsense if that were so. If man is created in such a way that he can do nothing but sin, then the concept of sin is nonsense to begin with, because sin implies a knowledge of the moral evil of an act and a willingness to commit it anyway, with the capability of refraining. If he cannot do otherwise but sin, then he's not responsible for sin. But his creator would be; God would be the author of sin/evil. And some Reformed, in fact, like to point to Is 45:7 to prove this fact:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Shrewd Manager

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2019
4,167
4,081
Melbourne
✟364,409.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Restoration of things. Not people

Is that your final answer or would you like to phone a friend? God's not going to fix my washing machine.

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col 1:17)

When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:28)

>> Only believers are Israel in the New Covenant. Good works merit rewards.

Sure, and it is God's will that all come to a knowledge and So find my any hellfire texts in the gospels involving unbelievers.

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)

>> eternal destruction remains forever

Agreed, but what is destroyed? These passages show the nations are redeemed.

>> This is happening now in the spiritual realm. John spoke in symbols depicting spiritual realities using physical objects.

Yes, and when he uses metaphors like 'death' and 'hades' and 'lake of fire' and 'brimstone' and 'torment', we have to understand them spiritually, not carnally.

>> this is in the New Heavens and Earth.

Proving the nations get renewed with all the other thingamajigs.

>>Only the saved are healed.

Correct, being the nations. Cause He knows the end from the beginning, and the end is salvation. Don't know how much simpler it can get.

>> all = the saved only, the rest are in eternal torments.

What a sad and sinister picture. Just ignore that lot and rejoice. Love could not bear that.

> based on seeing what you want to see while ignoring the rest of scripture.

Well, on the scoreboard its 10 carnally-interpreted damnation texts v 100+ spiritually-interpreted salvation texts. So unless my maths is worse than I thought...
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Childish.
I'm saddened that you didn't pick up on the fact that I was "mirroring" the quality of your argument with an equal but opposite argument. Irony is lost on some, I guess.

The difference between us, Gup, is that I refute the post with evidence both scriptural and logical and you ignore that content. The difference between us is that I don't proof-text scripture but instead consider whole scripture in its many contexts both local and global and you do the opposite.
No scripture means no evidence.

So when snide comments like the above are posted following what has already transpired, the snide comments say more about you then anyone or anything else.
So you don't believe in the 6th point of Calvinism -- irresistible sarcasm?

In this particular case the two single verses quoted were shown 1) to have been proof-texted, and 2) to say something much different when considered in their stated contexts.
Proof texted? This is the first I've heard of this opinion from you. Care to discuss?

That is not what a straw man is, Gup. A straw man occurs when a misrepresentation is argued against. It was you who misrepresented the Deuteronomy text. You did so by proof-texting a single verse and ignoring its surrounding passage.

Deuteronomy 30 occurs in the context of a covenant established before any of the people in the Deuteronomy 30 audience were even born! The covenant with Abraham of which God is speaking was initiated by God hundreds of years before anyone in Dt. 30 was born. The Sinai covenant through Moses was also initiated by God and also initiated without asking anyone if they wanted God to do so.

1) God initiated the covenant.
2) God initiated the covenant without asking consent.
3) It was only after they were within the covenant were they asked.​

Until you come to terms with the soteriological relevance of those three truths you won't be forming an intelligent response. Until those three truths are addressed the previous poroof-texting of Dt, 30:19 fails.
I was just going by Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10 that Duteronomy 30 was regarding the "righteous based on faith" and that Deu 30 discusses the "word of faith which Paul was preaching". I'll stick to that rather than your interpretation.

You don't get to jump around from verse to verse to verse to verse and expect to be taken seriously.

You brought up Dt. 3019.
I dealt with it demonstrating the proof-texting failed.
You did not address the matter; you instead attempted to change verses to be discussed.​
Where did you discuss Deuteronomy 30:19? I'll look at the post again... I must have missed where you mentioned Romans 10's interpretation of Deuteronomy 30, nor Romans 8 echo of it.

And Adam was not in an uncovenanted state! You've - once again - displayed an amazing lackof knowledge about scripture.
So you believe that after the fall, Adam was not totally depraved and he was not in need of salvation for eternal life? Interesting position. He was indwelled by Holy Spirit while dead then? Or are you asserting that he contained a sin nature before the fall and before he sinned?

So either stick to the topic of the op - which is about Arminiainsim

Well it is 75% about Calvinism, isn't it.

deal with the error you made regarding Dt. 30:19.
As stated above, I'm going by Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 30 as being about the righteousness based on faith.
No one will have any trust you can have a cogent conversation if you prove unwilling or unable to discuss your own content incrementally. No one will have any trust you can have a cogent conversation if you don't won't can't stay on topic.

It's reall simple: just keep the words, "Calvin," "Calvinism," and "Calvinists" out of your posts and stick to "Arminius," "Arminianism," and "Arminianists."

This op is about the where Arminianism fails. Nothing more.
It's 25% about Arminianism and 75% about where it asserts Calvinsim gets it right.

You said Dt. 30:19 evidences Arminian soteriolgy but an exegetical examination of the proof-texted verse proves the exact opposite and you are not dealing with that fact.
Actually, I argued against Arminianism as having the same fatal flaw as Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anyone can post one-liners dissent and vainly imagine it forms a cogent case for something when in fact it is baseless nonsense.


Prove faith isn't a work.

[Rom 4:2-6 NASB] 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:​

Here we see Paul draw a distinction between faith and works and then claim that faith is not a work.

Prove Paul believed otherwise.
[Gal 2:16 NASB] 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

[Gal 3:12 NASB] 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."​


Provide a single example from Galatians that talks about the faith of the unregenerate.
Provide a single example in Galatians where faith is mentioned absent any corresponding behavioral manifestation of that faith.

Abraham. He was made righteous for his faith in the gospel before doing any works.

[Gal 3:2, 5-9 NASB] 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? ... 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.​

I know you read Gal 3:2 and 6 and thought "FALSE DICHOTOMY!!"
Otherwise, the righteous shall live by faith (Gal. 2:20) and the unrighteous will not live at all. Everyone was shut up under sin and kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed (Gal. 3:22-26). In other words, faith is revealed, not inherent in the dead sinner.
Strawman.
No one argues that faith is inherent in the dead sinner.
We were all previously shut up to the faith and shut up under sin, but Arminianism says God works in the shut up person just enough to allow that person to have faith before being freed from the sin that shuts him up from that faith. The promise by faith in Jesus Christ given to those who believe (Gal. 3:22) but there's no record of any unregenerate believing in the God he denies exists.
If Armininianists say this, they are wrong (though they probably don't say this). The correct argument is that no mystical, magical, or spiritual power is required for faith and faith is mere belief in the gospel.

Paul wrote about justification by faith, not salvation by faith. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that states we are saved by faith.
[Luk 7:50 NASB] 50 And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."​
James 2:17-18
"Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'"
Works qualifies faith as genuine. Faith alone saves. This is why Abraham was made righteous for his faith decades before he offered Isaac on the altar (the very example James uses to show that works perfected faith).

[James 2:20-23 NASB] 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.​

Yet Romans 4 says that Abraham was made righteous PRIOR to circumcision. Abraham was circumcised 20-30 years before offering Isaac on the altar. So he was given righteousness prior to performing the works that confirmed his faith was genuine.

Works demonstrates faith as genuine, but faith alone apart from works makes one righteous.

So when the Arminian asserts God is waiting for the unregenerate sinner to believe, that Arminiain is saying God is waiting for that dead and enslaved unregenerate sinner to demonstrate or operationalize his faith from the sinfully dead and enslaved and still not yet regenerate state.

The faith discussed in Galatians is all about the regenerate, not the unregenerate.

Faith qualifies a person for inheriting Abraham's righteousness. When we have the same faith in the gospel that Abraham had, we are considered 'children of abraham' or "abraham's descendants." This human adoption doesn't require regeneration. Once that kinship relationship with Abraham exists, God gives us -- as qualified heirs -- the righteousness of Abraham. Since the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in an unrighteous person, we must first be made righteous before the Holy Spirit can indwell us.

Faith isn't a mystical magic as Calvinism presupposes.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What happens if a God-denying unregenerate sinfully dead and enslaved person doesn't "fall for satan's distractions"?
First, God loves everyone. Do you believe that? If you do, then how could you believe it's His will for anyone to remain enslaved by Satan?
If an unregenerate person is being convicted by the Spirit and listens instead of turning away to Satan's distractions, he will become a believer. It might take a second or it might take years, but those who seek more light when given some, find that light.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Prove faith isn't a work
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

If you can't see the difference between faith and works shown here, I don't know what to tell you. And take note, he says that we receive the Spirit by having faith. Calvinism reverses this and says we have to have the Spirit to have faith. The contrast between faith and works is as plain as day and so is the order of salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,180
5,695
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It's not a matter of jumping to conclusions. Plausible conclusions can be arrived at via
scripture on both sides of this coin. But the church has never taught double presentation or the total absence whatsoever of man's will playing some role in his being justified. The gospel and "salvation history" is reduced to nonsense if that were so. If man is created in such a way that he can do nothing but sin, then the concept of sin is nonsense to begin with, because sin implies a knowledge of the moral evil of an act and a willingness to commit it anyway, with the capability of refraining. If he cannot do otherwise but sin, then he's not responsible for sin. But his creator would be; God would be the author of sin/evil. And some Reformed, in fact, like to point to Is 45:7 to prove this fact:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
The quote refers, by "evil", to catastrophe or things we commonly refer to as bad luck.

But "can do nothing but sin" is the result of "always choosing to sin", or as Reformed doctrine would say, having sin inherent in all one does. When it comes to choosing to reject their own creator, the will is involved --there are no victims here.

God's command, btw, does not imply the ability to obey it.

Neither are compliance and obedience the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.