Arminianism is inconsistent

[Sovereign Grace]

I have already given you a verse that demonstrates a freed will, but you didn't like it. I'm referring to Titus 2:11 (ESV), 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'.

Steve Sewell explains it this way,


So a freed will, as opposed to free will, means that human beings who are slaves to sin are freed in the will to be able to respond positively to the Gospel message in faith that is dependent on God alone for salvation.

Oz

Brother Oz, those who have a 'freed will', can they still died lost after having this 'freed will'?

 

[DeaconDean]

Adam wasn't born he was created. There is a great difference especially in a theological sense. And moreover he wasn't created perfect for if he had been he would not have plunged us all into the depravity of sin.

He was created righteous and good but not perfect.

Agreed, Arthur Pink shows us that Adam was created innocent and not perfect.

In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in three different men, namely, unfallen Adam, the sinner, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of Innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from "the Man Christ Jesus."..The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that which is good because, side by side with His sinless, holy, perfect humanity, was His eternal Deity. Now in contradistinction from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased toward good, and Adam’s will which, before his fall, was in a condition of moral equipoise—capable of turning toward either good or evil..

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, Chapter 7: The Sovereignty of God and Human Will, Section II: The Bondage of the Human Will

Source: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sov_07.htm

Big, big difference.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I am a Baptist but I am not a Calvinist either nor am I an Arminian.

The dreaded non-Calvinist?

I do believe we have to chose God or God won't chose us.

There is no verse to support this belief of yours I'm afraid. Jesus did tell His disciples He chose them and not vice versa.

I am Arminian in that thinking but I do believe in Eternal Security so that disqualifies me as Arminian.

Not it doesn't disqualify you. I've read Jacob Arminius was unsettled on forfeiture of faith/loss of salvation.

What do Calvinists and Arminian folk call those of us who believe both sides have merits?

As Brother Twin1954 stated; "Confused. "

 

[Bluelion]

The dreaded non-Calvinist?



There is no verse to support this belief of yours I'm afraid. Jesus did tell His disciples He chose them and not vice versa.


Not it doesn't disqualify you. I've read Jacob Arminius was unsettled on forfeiture of faith/loss of salvation.


As Brother Twin1954 stated; "Confused. "

God said choose this day who you will serve. sounds like choice to me. Yes Jesus chose them but they also chose Him. Jesus said follow me and I will make you fisher of Men, and they followed Him. choice. But Jesus told others to follow Him and they did not, Jesus chose them but they did not follow that is choice. The rich man would not follow, the man who dad died wanted to bury his dad first and so did not follow, they chose something else over Jesus even though Jesus chose them and said follow me.

You don't get to pick and chose what you believe in the Bible, you must accept it all or none. That is the problem with your side, you can not aruge for your case, you reject anything else which shows you are wrong, and open up more question while not answering anything just saying God's ways are mysterious, well maybe to you but that does not fit what God says. God says the secrets of heaven are made known to His children.

To the guy that said what if you believe both have merit what you call that, you said confused. I say it is a good start.

 

[OzSpen]

Brother Oz, those who have a 'freed will', can they still died lost after having this 'freed will'?

Do you understand the meaning of Titus 2:11 (ESV) that I quoted? 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'? Prevenient grace makes salvation available to all but it does not cause them to be born again. That takes the intervention of God himself (see John 6:44, 65).

 

[twin1954]

Do you understand the meaning of Titus 2:11 (ESV) that I quoted? 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'? Prevenient grace makes salvation available to all but it does not cause them to be born again. That takes the intervention of God himself (see John 6:44, 65).

So God will do something for them if the first do something for themselves? Sounds like works salvation to me.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I don't see why we should be overly concerned about the consistency of Arminianism.

We can never understand fully God's method of salvation other than the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus and believing in Him.

Atm, I lean Calvinist, but both sides have something to learn from each other.

The Bible teaches both predestination and free will.

 

[Bluelion]

Calvinist logic God knows a man is going to steal, so there for the man has no free will because he can not go against what God knows, there for God made him steal. They ignore the fact God can look ahead and see what you will do with out interfering. God chose looked at what choice the person made, He did not dictate in any way what would happen. That is free will.

 

[twin1954]

There are some who tell falsehoods against Calvinism knowing that they are doing so. They have been corrected many times and yet continue to tell the same falsehoods.

The logic of Calvinism isn't that God wills man to steal but that He purposes that he sin the sin that he does in order to accomplish His purpose for the glory of His name and the good of His people.

Joseph and his brothers are a clear example of this but the best one is the cruel death of Christ Jesus the Lord at the hands of wicked sinners to the glory of God and the good of His people is the greatest. Gen. 50:20, Acts 2:23


The greatest monument to the "free will" of man is that they put the Lord of glory on a Roman cross. That is what "free will' always attempts to do to God when they are confronted by Him.

Calvinism doesn't deny that we choose to believe we deny that we do so apart from being born of God.

The Arminian logic is that spiritually dead men either bring themselves to life by their decision or that God gives them life in prevenient grace and then allows them die again when they do not believe.

 

[OzSpen]

Calvinist logic God knows a man is going to steal, so there for the man has no free will because he can not go against what God knows, there for God made him steal. They ignore the fact God can look ahead and see what you will do with out interfering. God chose looked at what choice the person made, He did not dictate in any way what would happen. That is free will.

That is not how the Calvinistic unconditional election, limited atonement & irresistible grace sees it.

Contrary to the title of this thread, I find that Reformed or Classical Arminianism is biblically consistent regarding the elements of salvation. See FACTS of salvation according to Arminianism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't see why we should be overly concerned about the consistency of Arminianism.

We can never understand fully God's method of salvation other than the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus and believing in Him.

Atm, I lean Calvinist, but both sides have something to learn from each other.

The Bible teaches both predestination and free will.

Since you believe in predestination and free will as doctrine taught in the Bible, that is also the teaching of Arminianism.

Arminius taught predestination, but as a former supralapsarian, he rejected its doctrine of double predestination, i.e. people are predestined by God to both salvation and damnation.

Arminius supported free will (or, the freed will) as it relates to salvation. Arminians believe all human beings are freed by grace to believe.

So you do not have to be a Calvinist to agree with both predestination and free will. However, do you believe in double predestination that includes God predestining unbelievers to eternal damnation? John Calvin believed in double predestination.

Oz

 

[Bluelion]

That is not how the Calvinistic unconditional election, limited atonement & irresistible grace sees it.

Contrary to the title of this thread, I find that Reformed or Classical Arminianism is biblically consistent regarding the elements of salvation. See FACTS of salvation according to Arminianism.

Oz

I have had argument with Calvinist on this site which believe it true. I also had to study this arugement for school which a number of people have address one answer to it was God the timeless God. States that time has no effect on God that God is present in all time so when he see what you will do it actually current to Him. The problems with this theory is it makes God reacting to everything rather than Having a plan. The first statement I made is a real argument, and is popular one too.

 

[mikedsjr]

Calvinist logic God knows a man is going to steal, so there for the man has no free will because he can not go against what God knows, there for God made him steal. They ignore the fact God can look ahead and see what you will do with out interfering. God chose looked at what choice the person made, He did not dictate in any way what would happen. That is free will.

This sounds like pelegianism.

 

[Bluelion]

This sounds like pelegianism.

you should not use words you don't understand. Would you care to explain how in any way this souds like that. Here are some words on the matter.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession oflibertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as aheresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

I see you saw a catch phrase free will and amused that is what all us who believe free will think? Your group has a bad habit of saying people said stuff they did not say. It is a logical fallacies that your group often does also. You say things which are not said make up an extreme position and they argue against it as if I said it when what you are arguing was never said to start with.

 

[Bluelion]

This sounds like pelegianism.

The fallacy you and your group commit over and over and i have seen OZ call the group out a number of times is a straw man. How can any one get any where with people who can not follow simple debating rules? Here is the definition for you and others. If you would like to discuss I would be happy to if you can refrain from logical fallacies as your argument.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Since you believe in predestination and free will as doctrine taught in the Bible, that is also the teaching of Arminianism.

Arminius taught predestination, but as a former supralapsarian, he rejected its doctrine of double predestination, i.e. people are predestined by God to both salvation and damnation.

Arminius supported free will (or, the freed will) as it relates to salvation. Arminians believe all human beings are freed by grace to believe.

So you do not have to be a Calvinist to agree with both predestination and free will. However, do you believe in double predestination that includes God predestining unbelievers to eternal damnation? John Calvin believed in double predestination.

Oz

I am actually torn between 4 point Calvinism (I'm Amyraldian), and classical Armininianism.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

This sounds like pelegianism.

No, that sounds like open theism.

 

[twin1954]

Since you believe in predestination and free will as doctrine taught in the Bible, that is also the teaching of Arminianism.

Arminius taught predestination, but as a former supralapsarian, he rejected its doctrine of double predestination, i.e. people are predestined by God to both salvation and damnation.

Arminius supported free will (or, the freed will) as it relates to salvation. Arminians believe all human beings are freed by grace to believe.

So you do not have to be a Calvinist to agree with both predestination and free will. However, do you believe in double predestination that includes God predestining unbelievers to eternal damnation? John Calvin believed in double predestination.

Oz

The problem here is that I am not debating Jacob Arminius and you are not debating John Calvin. Those men are long dead and their theology has morphed into many different species of theology. That is why it does no good to post links about what Arminius believed and wrote. I want to know what you think and believe not what a long dead theologian thought.

I have bookshelves full of men long dead that I can read if I desire to know what they said. Supposed scholars quote other men, real thinkers speak for themselves.

 

[Bluelion]

No, that sounds like open theism.

Wow do you guys even understand the terms your throwing around? I guess not.

 

[twin1954]

No, that sounds like open theism.

Actually it is semi-pelagianism. Open theism believes that God doesn't know what will happen and learns from watching what man does. Pelagianism believes that man didn't actually die in the Fall. What most Arminians believe is that man did die in the Fall but God gives all men a chance to believe by giving them an understanding of the Gospel in prevenient grace. They believe that He knows what they will choose by foreknowledge.

It is semi-pelagianism because they believe in free will and that God actually chooses them because they choose Him. Their theology believes that the eternal state of each man is up to them.