An alternative Arminian Illustration of the New Birth

[TroyC]

Calvinists appeal to Lazarus as an illustration of the unregenerate man's encounter with the new birth:

James White, explains: “On the level of spiritual capacity the unregenerate man is just like Lazarus: dead, bound, incapable of ‘self-resurrection.’ It would be patently absurd to demand that Jesus first ask Lazarus for ‘permission’ to raise him to spiritual life. Corpses are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversations. No, before Lazarus can respond to Christ’s command to come forth, something must happen. Corpses do not obey commands, corpses do not move. Jesus changed Lazarus’ condition first: Lazarus’ heart was made new; his mind revitalized. Blood began once again to course through his veins. What was once dead is now alive, and can heart the voice of his beloved Lord, ‘Come forth!’ The term ‘irresistible’ then must be understood as speaking to the inability of dead sinners to resist resurrection to new life.” (The Potter’s Freedom, pp.284-285)

Rather than show why I disagree with this being a valid description of the unregenerate man's experience with the new birth, I will instead offer and explain an alternative illustration for the Arminian view of regeneration.

Mark 3:1,3,5 (ESV, emphasis mine)
1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand...3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, Come here. ..5 (then Jesus) said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

How is this an alternative view?

First, the man with the withered hand had no ability to "heal himself." This parallels the Arminian's view of depravity. Arminians rightly proclaim man could not save himself in the same way this man could not heal himself. Apart from the wooing, influence and conviction of the Holy Spirit (which is what Arminians understand as God's drawing), man could not be made alive. The Arminian understands this to take place before the unregenerate man believes, which to them, takes place before being made alive. However, to be more precise, the arminian understands regeneration to occur as one believes.

Second, Arminians rightly believe that without prevenient grace, yes, the wooing/drawing influence/direction of the Holy Spirit, the unregenerate man would not repent of sin and come to Christ believing in Him in the same way that the man with the withered hand would not have been healed had Christ not came to him and said "stretch out your hand."

Third, Arminians do not believe that a choice to believe with the will from the heart in response to the influence of God can be accredited as merit on mans part, nor could it be considered a work. Arminians believe man would never come to believe without grace in the same way the man with the withered hand would not have chosen to stretch out his hand apart from the grace of Jesus. So, the choice to believe the gospel with with the will from the heart could no more be considered a work or merit on his part any more than the same could be said of the man with the withered hand. Clearly the man chose to stretch out his hand after and in response to Jesus and in doing so, his hand was restored. Can this be considered merit on his part or a work that he done? Certainly not. Neither then could it be considered a merit or a work that on mans behalf if the choice to believe takes place before being made alive.

Fourth, Arminians do not believe that choice to believe with the will from the heart in response to this prior grace gives one room to boast. In the same way, this can be compared to the man with the withered hand's response to Jesus. Does his response which got him healed give room for him to boast? After all, he did choose to do what Jesus told him to (i.e. stretch out the hand). He was healed as he stretched out his hand after Jesus said to do so. If the Calvinist wants to claim that the idea that faith precedes regeneration gives room for boasting, they must also say the same thing with the man with the withered hand, that Jesus gave this man room for boasting. This is something Calvinists wont do/say, and rightfully so. It logically follows then that their claims against the Arminian is unwarranted and erroneous. Therefore, the Calvinist needs to refrain from making such claims.

 

[bradfordl]

Might work if the scriptures had said we were "withered of hand in our sins and trespasses", but sadly for the arminian, it says something else, doesn't it?

 

[heymikey80]

Well that's nice, but Calvinists don't have a particular problem with the story of the withered hand, either. We don't see stretching the withered hand as speaking to the person's faith.

In point of fact the hand had already been restored when he stretched out the hand.

If he hadn't stretched out his hand, do you think the hand would have become unhealed?

Was the man's faith due to seeing the healing of his hand, or was it prior? Which has precedence: the Spirit's action on the hand, or the man's faith?

There are certainly cases of healing where the person had faith before the healing. But if there were one case of the reverse, how would that illustrate Arminianism?

 

[TroyC]

Might work if the scriptures had said we were "withered of hand in our sins and trespasses", but sadly for the arminian, it says something else, doesn't it?

I Assume you are referring to Eph. 2:1 where Paul informed the Ephesians that they were "dead in trespasses and sins." Could you or any calvinist explain to me why you feel it is a must to take Paul's metaphorical handling of the word "dead" as absolute, and do so to the point of excluding the metophorical usage of sickness in reference to the lost. Isaiah, Jesus, Peter and others used such metaphorical terminology (i.e. sick/sickness).

Also, if you are going to equivocate being dead in trespasses and sins with being a spiritual corpse in the exact same way as Lazarus being a physical corpse, then you must also apply such descriptive analogy with demons. Are they dead in trespasses and sins? Does this mean that they are spiritual corpses? After all, James White tells us "Corpses are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversations." Yet did not the demons engage in coversations with Jesus? Have you come here to torment us before the time "they said in fear" Remember, in order for the Lazarus analogy to work, we have to keep in mind like James White says that "Corpses do not obey commands, corpses do not move," and we have to apply it to demons. They obey commands and move. Is there communication among demons, fallen angels, unclean spirits and the devil with each other? Dead men don't and can't believe anything, but the man dead in trespasses and sins can choose to believe a variety of things. For instance, the prodigal son, who was said to have also been dead, come to his self (repentance) and went to his father. He believed his father might accept him, so he left the far country and returned to his father's house. Therefore, when Paul used the word dead, he did not have any kind of inability in mind. Such an analogy based on Paul's usage of dead is entirely arbitrary.

 

[TroyC]

Well that's nice, but Calvinists don't have a particular problem with the story of the withered hand, either. We don't see stretching the withered hand as speaking to the person's faith.

I would hope there would be no problem among calvinists with the story of the withered hand. But the Calvinist would object to my analogies and parallels with the story, because the calvinist insists that arminian doctrine of salvation implies "self resurrection", "works" "merit" and "room to boast". If my analogy and parallels are assumed for the sake of argument, it appears that the calvinist needs to recant and dismiss these claims.

In point of fact the hand had already been restored when he stretched out the hand.

I'll admit this may be so, but your claim is not entirely clear. After re-reading this account in a few translations, it is not as clear as I initially thought. In fact, it may not say when his hand was healed. It simply says "He stretched it out, and his hand was restored". Mark could have meant that that when his hand was stretched out, it was then healed or, he could have meant that Jesus healed his hand when He said "stretch out your hand" and by the time the man did so, his hand was healed. Either way this doesn't harm my illustration nor is it a problem for it, because Jesus had already told the man to come here which we read in verse 3. Do you want to claim that his hand was healed before he chose to comply with Jesus request/command? I could easily backstep my analogy to here if I wanted to.

If he hadn't stretched out his hand, do you think the hand would have become unhealed?

You haven't proven your point. But if I assume for the sake of argument, then no, his hand would not have become unhealed.

Was the man's faith due to seeing the healing of his hand, or was it prior? Which has precedence: the Spirit's action on the hand, or the man's faith?

To be honest, the text says nothing of his faith. Therefore, these questions are irrelevant.

There are certainly cases of healing where the person had faith before the healing. But if there were one case of the reverse, how would that illustrate Arminianism?

It would neither help nor harm Arminian doctrine. My whole purpose was to demonstrate that the claims that the Arminian understanding teaches "self resurrection" "merit" "works" "room for boasting" is unwarranted.

 

[bradfordl]

I Assume you are referring to Eph. 2:1 where Paul informed the Ephesians that they were "dead in trespasses and sins." Could you or any calvinist explain to me why you feel it is a must to take Paul's metaphorical handling of the word "dead" as absolute, and do so to the point of excluding the metophorical usage of sickness in reference to the lost. Isaiah, Jesus, Peter and others used such metaphorical terminology (i.e. sick/sickness).

Also, if you are going to equivocate being dead in trespasses and sins with being a spiritual corpse in the exact same way as Lazarus being a physical corpse, then you must also apply such descriptive analogy with demons. Are they dead in trespasses and sins? Does this mean that they are spiritual corpses? After all, James White tells us "Corpses are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversations." Yet did not the demons engage in coversations with Jesus? Have you come here to torment us before the time "they said in fear" Remember, in order for the Lazarus analogy to work, we have to keep in mind like James White says that "Corpses do not obey commands, corpses do not move," and we have to apply it to demons. They obey commands and move. Is there communication among demons, fallen angels, unclean spirits and the devil with each other? Dead men don't and can't believe anything, but the man dead in trespasses and sins can choose to believe a variety of things. For instance, the prodigal son, who was said to have also been dead, come to his self (repentance) and went to his father. He believed his father might accept him, so he left the far country and returned to his father's house. Therefore, when Paul used the word dead, he did not have any kind of inability in mind. Such an analogy based on Paul's usage of dead is entirely arbitrary.

People and demons are ontologically different types of beings. We have nowhere near the amount of information about how God has decreed to deal with demons as we do with humanity, which renders your argument a faulty analogy fallacy of logic.

Care to try again?

 

[TroyC]

People and demons are ontologically different types of beings. We have nowhere near the amount of information about how God has decreed to deal with demons as we do with humanity, which renders your argument a faulty analogy fallacy of logic.

It is true, that man made in the image of God is ontologically distinguished from demons. You are also correct when you say that the amount of information God has given us concerning how he deals, (a better word would be communicates) with demons is nowhere near the amount of information he has given us concerning how he deals (communicates) with man. However, your conclusion from this is flawed, and does not follow from your premises. That is because you assume that because there is very little information on how God deals with demons in comparison to how he deals with man, then there is not enough information to support my argument. However, despite the great categorical difference you point out, you fail to deal with the bit of information I did give. Instead, you present some general observations, side step my points, and hastily conclude the very arguments you fail to address are fallacious.

Care to try again?

First, you should address my points. How about this one:

1) Calvinists use the illustration of Lazarus who was physically dead to explain what it means for use to be dead in trespasses and sins.

2) Lazarus' body being physically dead, could not respond to anyone, engage in any kind of conversation, or believe in anything.

3) Demons are also dead in trespasses and sins. To be dead in trespasses and sins is the opposite of being alive. Rom. 6:11 Explains that to be alive is to be alive to God. Supposing demons are not alive to God as described here nor are they alive as described in Eph. 2, the default category they fall in, which is the only other option to choose from, is the category of being dead in trespasses and sins.

4). Demons are definitely able to respond, engage in conversations, and believe things. (see Matt 8:29) Satan's kingdom is an undivided kingdom (which implies order and unity) consisting of demons. (Matt. 12:25-27)

5) Therefore, the man who is dead is trespasses and sins is not spiritually dead in the same way Lazarus was physically dead. As Don Roberts says "When Jesus called Lazarus by name, he was not addressing the dead corpse. He was summoning the spirit of this saved man from Abraham's bosom in order to reunite body and spirit. In so doing He demonstrated His power and glory as the Resurrection and the Life! Regeneration, on the other hand, takes place under an entirely different set of circumstances; that is, with soul and body still in tact." In conclusion, I submit that to compare and use Lazarus as a picture of both being dead in trespasses and sins and of the new birth, is to confuse apples with oranges.

 

[bradfordl]

1) Calvinists use the illustration of Lazarus who was physically dead to explain what it means for use to be dead in trespasses and sins.

Agreed

2) Lazarus' body being physically dead, could not respond to anyone, engage in any kind of conversation, or believe in anything.

Agreed

3) Demons are also dead in trespasses and sins. To be dead in trespasses and sins is the opposite of being alive. Rom. 6:11 Explains that to be alive is to be alive to God. Supposing demons are not alive to God as described here nor are they alive as described in Eph. 2, the default category they fall in, which is the only other option to choose from, is the category of being dead in trespasses and sins.

Your first sentence, "Demons are also dead in trespasses and sins." is a non sequitar statement. You offer no scriptural support for the idea that demons are alive or dead in the same fashion that humans are alive or dead. It does not necessarily follow that since humans are either alive or dead in a certain fashion, that demons share any or all of the repurcussions of that in the realm in which they exist. This renders that component of your argument fallacious and moot.

4). Demons are definitely able to respond, engage in conversations, and believe things. (see Matt 8:29) Satan's kingdom is an undivided kingdom (which implies order and unity) consisting of demons. (Matt. 12:25-27)

Moot. See above.

5) Therefore, the man who is dead is trespasses and sins is not spiritually dead in the same way Lazarus was physically dead. As Don Roberts says "When Jesus called Lazarus by name, he was not addressing the dead corpse. He was summoning the spirit of this saved man from Abraham's bosom in order to reunite body and spirit. In so doing He demonstrated His power and glory as the Resurrection and the Life! Regeneration, on the other hand, takes place under an entirely different set of circumstances; that is, with soul and body still in tact." In conclusion, I submit that to compare and use Lazarus as a picture of both being dead in trespasses and sins and of the new birth, is to confuse apples with oranges.

To open this item with "Therefore" is strange, because the premises you submit above bear no proof of this conclusion. But then within this item you present a sillogism independent of your previous arguments: 1. A man dead in sins and trespasses is spiritually dead. 2. Lazurus was a saved (unproven postulation) man who was physically dead. 3. Therefore there is no analogous relationship between the two that would prove the calvinist doctrine of inability of the unregenerate. Taken in isolation, this sillogism appears possibly coherent. However, this event is not in isolation when it comes to scriptural support for monergistic regeneration:

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. (26) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (30) I and my Father are one.

Rom 3:10-18 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (13) Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: (15) Their feet are swift to shed blood: (16) Destruction and misery are in their ways: (17) And the way of peace have they not known: (18) There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Rom 8:4-9 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

These are but a few, there are many more, but they are sufficient to prove the inability of the unregenerate to participate in any way in their regeneration. The Lazarus event, when viewed in light of the whole of scripture, is therefore very nicely analogous of monergistic regeneration, and your argument is without merit. One last point. In your OP you said this:

Apart from the wooing, influence and conviction of the Holy Spirit (which is what Arminians understand as God's drawing), man could not be made alive.

I must assume you derive the word "draw" from this verse:

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The word translated draw here is: ἑλκύω, ἕλκω helkuō helkō hel-koo'-o, hel'-ko to drag (literally or figuratively): - draw. The same word is used here:

Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

And here:

Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

Was Peter wooing and influencing his sword or his net in these instances, or was he monergistically doing with them what he wanted?

 

[DocNH]

Scripture states,

Mark 3:1-6 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

TroyC states,

First, the man with the withered hand had no ability to "heal himself." This parallels the Arminian's view of depravity. Arminians rightly proclaim man could not save himself in the same way this man could not heal himself. Apart from the wooing, influence and conviction of the Holy Spirit (which is what Arminians understand as God's drawing), man could not be made alive. The Arminian understands this to take place before the unregenerate man believes, which to them, takes place before being made alive. However, to be more precise, the arminian understands regeneration to occur as one believes.

Indeed, the man had no ability to heal himself. I also note that the text does not say he was even looking to be healed (Rom. 3:11). It was not until Christ entered the synagogue seeking his lost sheep (Matt. 15:24) and then calling the man forth (as he did Lazarus from the grave) that the man was healed. Out of all the people in the synagogue Christ chose this one.

Now who made the one with the withered hand? Was it not the Lord? (Ex. 4:11; Rom. 9:20-21). Now, who was seeking for whom? Was it not Christ that was seeking this specific sinner? Now who is the one that “called” forth this specific man to be healed? Was it not Christ? Now who is the one who made this specific man whole? Was it not Christ? On what authority did Christ do this? Was it not upon his very own election from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4-5, 11). As Paul states, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

TroyC states,

Second, Arminians rightly believe that without prevenient grace, yes, the wooing/drawing influence/direction of the Holy Spirit, the unregenerate man would not repent of sin and come to Christ believing in Him in the same way that the man with the withered hand would not have been healed had Christ not came to him and said "stretch out your hand."

Christ did MORE than DRAW or WOO. First, he knew where his lost sheep was – Christ went to the synagogue. Second, out of all the people in the synagogue he called out only one – the man with the withered hand. Third, it was in the power of Christ’s words that the man with the withered hand was enabled to stand forth. Who was Jesus that this complete stranger would obey him? Why did this man obey him? Something transpired (John 3:8). Faith was already active and thus regeneration was already present. Lastly, the withered hand was already healed when he stretched forth his hand. The man stretching forth his hand was to bare witness to what God had done and not to assert what the man with the withered hand had done. Note that the Pharisees were angry with Jesus – the Healer – and not with the one healed (Mark 3:6).

Arminianism confuses regeneration with justification. However, these are separate and distinct acts. God alone regenerates (John 3:3, 5, 8, etc.). After man is regenerated, he is then alive (and yes dead people are just that – DEAD, Eph 2:1, 5, etc. – zombie theology is not biblical). The regenerated man now has gifts that were not previously understood by him – i.e. faith (Eph. 2:8-10) and repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26). Now he is irresistibly drawn to Christ – as he has light and life to see things (John 1:4; 1 Cor. 2:12-16). When faith and repentance are manifested then justification (God’s declaration, not man’s presentation of a withered hand) comes about by grace alone! …..

A problem with Arminian "prevenient grace" is that there is no clear Biblical support for it. Not once does Scripture speak of prevenient grace that "enables" salvation without also assuring salvation. Paul states, in Romans 8:30 “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” This does not speak of a mere possibility of or mere enabling of salvation, but a definiteness of salvation for all whom God has predestined! As matter a fact, several times in Scripture we see Jesus withholding the understanding salvation from sinners. Mark 4:11-12 states, “And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” And again in Matthew 11:23, “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” Where is the Arminian enabling above?

TroyC states,

Third, Arminians do not believe that a choice to believe with the will from the heart in response to the influence of God can be accredited as merit on mans part, nor could it be considered a work. Arminians believe man would never come to believe without grace in the same way the man with the withered hand would not have chosen to stretch out his hand apart from the grace of Jesus. So, the choice to believe the gospel with with the will from the heart could no more be considered a work or merit on his part any more than the same could be said of the man with the withered hand. Clearly the man chose to stretch out his hand after and in response to Jesus and in doing so, his hand was restored. Can this be considered merit on his part or a work that he done? Certainly not. Neither then could it be considered a merit or a work that on mans behalf if the choice to believe takes place before being made alive.

God looks upon “our willing” as a work. John says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Paul says, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom. 9:16). Once again, Arminians disagree with Scripture.

TroyC states,

Fourth, Arminians do not believe that choice to believe with the will from the heart in response to this prior grace gives one room to boast. In the same way, this can be compared to the man with the withered hand's response to Jesus. Does his response which got him healed give room for him to boast? After all, he did choose to do what Jesus told him to (i.e. stretch out the hand). He was healed as he stretched out his hand after Jesus said to do so. If the Calvinist wants to claim that the idea that faith precedes regeneration gives room for boasting, they must also say the same thing with the man with the withered hand, that Jesus gave this man room for boasting. This is something Calvinists wont do/say, and rightfully so. It logically follows then that their claims against the Arminian is unwarranted and erroneous. Therefore, the Calvinist needs to refrain from making such claims.

Arminians see man’s will as “free.” However, even God’s will is “not free.” God cannot sin, lie, or die, etc. His will is not free to do these things. How dare a man think he has more freedom than his very Creator (Rom. 9:15, 18, 21). As God’s will is bond to his holy nature, so is man’s will is tied to his now unholy fallen nature. Thus, with a will that is dead to the things of God (Eph. 2:1, 5) and that will not seek the things of God (Rom. 3:11), he will never chose God’s gifts for he is blind, halt, withered, lame, deaf, and at enmity to them – unless recreated and given new life first (John 3:3, 5, 8)!

Calvinists do not state that faith precedes regeneration, but rather regeneration mongeristically proceeds faith and repentance. Thus, there is no boasting from a Scriptural or experiential viewpoint! Arminian’s “alternative view” is merely an “alternative [another] gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6).


May God give us eyes to see and ears to hear.

Sincerely,

Doc

 

[TroyC]

Brad and Doc,

I am not interested in debating total depravity, irresistable grace, or unconditional election. That is not the purpose of this thread. You do not have to define and defend them here (in this topic). My main points were to demonstrate a legitimate reason to dismiss the claim that Arminian synergistic salvation gives room for a "works, self-resurrection, meritorious, boasting" doctrine. This can be true even if the various tulip doctrines are biblical. To make such claims against arminian doctrine of salvation is simply a false caricature, as I have demonstrated. If you two can't stay on topic, I'll just save my time, throw in the towell and give up.

 

[bradfordl]

Brad and Doc,

I am not interested in debating total depravity, irresistable grace, or unconditional election. That is not the purpose of this thread. You do not have to define and defend them here (in this topic). My main points were to demonstrate a legitimate reason to dismiss the claim that Arminian synergistic salvation gives room for a "works, self-resurrection, meritorious, boasting" doctrine. This can be true even if the various tulip doctrines are biblical. To make such claims against arminian doctrine of salvation is simply a false caricature, as I have demonstrated. If you two can't stay on topic, I'll just save my time, throw in the towell and give up.

All well and good, Troy, but when you present false premises as your argument to support this postulation, it is incumbent and proper that we should refute them. From what I can see, that has been done quite thoroughly. Your displeasure with that notwithstanding, this reply is completely irrelavent to your OP or consequent arguments. Both responses referred to addressed one by one the points you made, so if they are off topic, that is your own doing, not ours.

I'm sorry, but this last post does sound very much like someone frustrated by the fact that their arguments have been refuted and now wants to pretend they haven't, take their ball, and go home. if that is representative of the level of debate to which you are accustomed and capable, then yes, it might be a good idea to "throw in the towell (sic) and give up."

 

[mlqurgw]

Brad and Doc,

I am not interested in debating total depravity, irresistable grace, or unconditional election. That is not the purpose of this thread. You do not have to define and defend them here (in this topic). My main points were to demonstrate a legitimate reason to dismiss the claim that Arminian synergistic salvation gives room for a "works, self-resurrection, meritorious, boasting" doctrine. This can be true even if the various tulip doctrines are biblical. To make such claims against arminian doctrine of salvation is simply a false caricature, as I have demonstrated. If you two can't stay on topic, I'll just save my time, throw in the towell and give up.

The problem is that you seem to want to illustrate and argue from two isolated passages which taken by themselves can be used in a myriad of ways. Your arguments fail because they are based in a reading of a single passage and intruding into it what you wish. Now I am no logician but what makes Arminian synergistic regeneration illogical and unbiblical isn't that it cannot be illustrated but that it is a meriorious work based on simple logic. Synergism implies a cooperative effort. Faith is produced in the sinner by the work of God in preveient grace and the will of the sinner. Faith precedes regeneration and therefore regeneration is the result of a work of faith. Logic dictates that it is a meritorious work because regeneration is caused by faith. Arminain synergism confuses cause and effect in regeneration. The sinner does have room to boast because he did something that those who are not regenerated haven't done, he cooperated with the grace of God. Arminian synergism makes the will of man the determining factor and therefore the cause of salvation.

 

[TroyC]

I am reserving this spot here and will be back later to respond.

 

[DocNH]

I am reserving this spot here and will be back later to respond.

So you elected this spot to do with as you please later. Why didn't you elect all the spots? Uhmm

 

[TroyC]

Doc and Brad,

I have been working on a response, but I just lost about an hours worth of work. Please excuse the delay.

 

[bradfordl]

Doc and Brad,

I have been working on a response, but I just lost about an hours worth of work. Please excuse the delay.

Take your time, Troy. I trust you will persevere in redeeming the spot you have reserved for yourself. Feeling a little sorry for all those other spots, but... well... they just didn't have what it takes to cooperate with you in choosing a spot. I understand.

 

[TroyC]

So you elected this spot to do with as you please later. Why didn't you elect all the spots? Uhmm

I elected this spot because it was the only available spot. All the other spots you speak of did not exist at the time I elected this spot. It is illogical to believe that future spots presently existed at the time I elected the one I did, nor is it possible to prove such a concept. Anyways, you asked, I answered. Could we please not go much further down these roads as I would like to stay on the topic at hand here.

Take your time, Troy. I trust you will persevere in redeeming the spot you have reserved for yourself. Feeling a little sorry for all those other spots, but... well... they just didn't have what it takes to cooperate with you in choosing a spot. I understand.

Indeed, I feel sorry for those other spots. I mean, if only God had chosen to love them redemptively rather than carelessly passing over them leaving them in their hopeless condition all the while taking a salvific stance towards them, we could rejoice. But, God's mind was eternally settled that He would not love them with a redemptive love, and not even our prayers could change that. Yep, I do feel sorry for them, especially since they were only doing that which God foreordained them to do, could not genuinely do otherwise and were punished for doing the very thing they freely chose to do, which was what God predetermined them to do. Indeed, it is a very sad thing. As I said above, you asked, I answered. Could we please not go much further down these roads as I would like to stay on the topic at hand here.

 

[bradfordl]

I elected this spot because it was the only available spot. All the other spots you speak of did not exist at the time I elected this spot. It is illogical to believe that future spots presently existed at the time I elected the one I did, nor is it possible to prove such a concept. Anyways, you asked, I answered. Could we please not go much further down these roads as I would like to stay on the topic at hand here.

Indeed, I feel sorry for those other spots. I mean, if only God had chosen to love them redemptively rather than carelessly passing over them leaving them in their hopeless condition all the while taking a salvific stance towards them, we could rejoice. But, God's mind was eternally settled that He would not love them with a redemptive love, and not even our prayers could change that. Yep, I do feel sorry for them, especially since they were only doing that which God foreordained them to do, could not genuinely do otherwise and were punished for doing the very thing they freely chose to do, which was what God predetermined them to do. Indeed, it is a very sad thing. As I said above, you asked, I answered. Could we please not go much further down these roads as I would like to stay on the topic at hand here.

But neighbor, you have no idea how close you are to the truth. I know it troubles you. Most truth does that to the arrogant flesh. But the sorrow you feel is due to the fact that you realize that but for the grace of God, you would deservedly reside in the same domain. God resides in no such domain; He deserves naught but glory and praise.

Your real dilemma is rectifying the irrefutably scriptural doctrine of God's complete sovereignty over all things with the equally irrefutably scriptural doctrine of man's moral responsibility for his thoughts and actions. Your theology rejects this as a conundrum because it incorporates an anthropocentric perspective into its framework. God is holy. You are not... yet. God is omnipotent. You are not.... Ever. Categorically and ontologically entirely different. His sovereignty over events is not modified by your responsibility for your part in them, and vice versa. Those estates of being exist on entirely non-intersecting planes. Your unwillingness or inability to comprehend these facts is immaterial the truth, and these attempts at inventing an incoherent rectification just won't stand.

 

[DocNH]

TroyC stated,

I elected this spot because it was the only available spot. All the other spots you speak of did not exist at the time I elected this spot. It is illogical to believe that future spots presently existed at the time I elected the one I did, nor is it possible to prove such a concept. Anyways, you asked, I answered. Could we please not go much further down these roads as I would like to stay on the topic at hand here.

Actually this corresponds directly to the issue of the “Arminian Illustration of the New Birth.”

First, you just demonstrated that the spot you “elected” was NOT the only available spot, by making a post in yet another spot. You could have made four, five, even ten posts and selected which ever ones you desired, but you choose not to. Thus, you have demonstrated that even you practice election/reprobation in a limited way.

Second, you are assuming that spots have to necessarily presently exist (in the exact form you see them here) to be elected or reprobated. However decrees may be made before things exist: i.e. I elected to purchase my present home (and not purchase others) and put funds down for its purchase before it was even built.

Third, in actuality all the spots that will ever be on this forum are already present before God – (Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Since God does not change the spots that He “decreed” to be (Rom. 9:21-23; 1 Pet. 2:8), it is logical that He foreordained them to be what they are – otherwise they would necessarily be different for He is sovereign over all.

Fourth, if your explanation(s) are carried out to their logical end then: (1) you do away with the doctrine of election seeing that you claim a spot is only a spot when it is an “available spot,” (2) you do away with God’s omniscience as God cannot know “future spots” unless they “presently exist,” (Open theism), (3) you do away with God’s omnipotence for you may only select an “available spot,” instead of making one for honor and yet another for dishonor (Rom. 9:20-21). This is not the all powerful, all knowing, and sovereign God of Scripture.

Fifth, it appears you have yourself cornered in a spot, as if you respond to this post, you will prove that there was yet another spot you chose not to elect earlier!

Sincerely,
Doc

 

[bradfordl]

TroyC stated,


Actually this corresponds directly to the issue of the “Arminian Illustration of the New Birth.”

First, you just demonstrated that the spot you “elected” was NOT the only available spot, by making a post in yet another spot. You could have made four, five, even ten posts and selected which ever ones you desired, but you choose not to. Thus, you have demonstrated that even you practice election/reprobation in a limited way.

Second, you are assuming that spots have to necessarily presently exist (in the exact form you see them here) to be elected or reprobated. However decrees may be made before things exist: i.e. I elected to purchase my present home (and not purchase others) and put funds down for its purchase before it was even built.

Third, in actuality all the spots that will ever be on this forum are already present before God – (Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). Since God does not change the spots that He “decreed” to be (Rom. 9:21-23; 1 Pet. 2:8), it is logical that He foreordained them to be what they are – otherwise they would necessarily be different for He is sovereign over all.

Fourth, if your explanation(s) are carried out to their logical end then: (1) you do away with the doctrine of election seeing that you claim a spot is only a spot when it is an “available spot,” (2) you do away with God’s omniscience as God cannot know “future spots” unless they “presently exist,” (Open theism), (3) you do away with God’s omnipotence for you may only select an “available spot,” instead of making one for honor and yet another for dishonor (Rom. 9:20-21). This is not the all powerful, all knowing, and sovereign God of Scripture.

Fifth, it appears you have yourself cornered in a spot, as if you respond to this post, you will prove that there was yet another spot you chose not to elect earlier!

Sincerely,
Doc

I am electing this spot for the purpose of thanking you, Doc, for the very instructive spot in which you elected to so eloquently demonstrate the inescapability of the election of spots who are entirely without merit for, contribution to, or participation in, their own election.