Arminianism is inconsistent

[Patmos]

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

Go with Armininianism. It is NOT inconsistent.

 

[twin1954]

Go with Armininianism. It is NOT inconsistent.

It is inconsistent in that it claims that choosing to believe is not a work but has no logical reason why it isn't. It is inconsistent in that it makes the love of God a useless emotion while claiming that the love of God is what saves us. It is inconsistent in that it makes the accomplished atonement of Christ a useless thing unless man does something to give it power. It is inconsistent in that it takes the glory of God and gives it to men all the while claiming that the glory belongs to God. It is inconsistent in many ways.

 

[OzSpen]

This sounds like pelegianism.

Mike,

What did Pelagius believe? You don't seem to be on track with what he believed. Pelagius was a British monk and theologian (ca. AD 260-340) whose theology was refuted by Augustine of Hippo.


The beliefs of Pelagianism are exposed in Augustine’s books on Heresies and Hypognosticon. These beliefs are:

(i.) Whether Adam had sinned, or had not sinned, he would have died.

(ii.) The sin of Adam was injurious to no one except to himself; and therefore,

(iii.) Little children do not contract original sin from Adam; neither will they perish from life eternal, if they depart out of the present life without the sacrament of baptism.

(iv.) Lust or concupiscence in man is a natural good; neither is there any thing in it of which man may be ashamed.

(v.) Through his free will, as per se, man is sufficient for himself, and is able to will what is good, and to fulfill or perfect that which he wills. Or even, for the merits of works, God bestows grace on every one.

(vi.) The life of the just or the righteous in this life has in it no sin whatsoever; and from these persons, the church of Christ in this state of mortality are completed, that it may be altogether without spot or wrinkle.

(vii.) Pelagius, being compelled to confess grace, says that it is a gift conferred in creation, is the preaching of the law, and the illumination of the mind, to know those things which are good and those which are evil, as well as the remission of sins if any one has sinned, excluding from this [definition of grace] love and the gift and assistance of the Holy Spirit, without which, he says, the good which is known may be performed, though he acknowledges that this grace has also been given for this purpose -- that the thing may be the more easily done, which can indeed be otherwise done by the power of nature, but yet with greater difficulty (in Arminius 1977:389).

Arminius refuted these points.

You can read some of Augustine's writings against Pelagius in, On the Proceedings of Pelagius. In this document, Pelagius is quoted by Augustine as saying:

"We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from infancy to old age has never committed sin; but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God's grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards" (chapter 20).

I suggest you become more familiar with the doctrines of the heretic, Pelagius. Augustine calls him a heretic and his doctrines heretical.

Oz

Works consulted
Arminius, J 1977. The Writings of James Arminius, vol 2. Tr by J Nichols & W R Bagnall. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

So what do you see as God's plan. Does it include these extreme examples?

1. The rape of 5 year old girls;
2. Murder;
3. The evil executed by IS in the middle east;
4. September 11;
5. Hitler's Nazi Germany and its genocide;
6. etc.

I'm not quite understanding your view of God's plan. Does it involve secondary causes like Hitler and his associates in Germany.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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

I find Classical or Reformed Arminianism more consistent with the biblical evidence.

Have you read Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free? (BethanyHouse Publishers). Part of it is available online HERE.

Oz

 

[Patmos]

It is inconsistent in that it claims that choosing to believe is not a work but has no logical reason why it isn't. It is inconsistent in that it makes the love of God a useless emotion while claiming that the love of God is what saves us. It is inconsistent in that it makes the accomplished atonement of Christ a useless thing unless man does something to give it power. It is inconsistent in that it takes the glory of God and gives it to men all the while claiming that the glory belongs to God. It is inconsistent in many ways.

What rubbish. It makes none of your false claims as I am sure you know deep down.

If you do not then I suggest visit Society of Evangelical Arminians website. You, or anyone else, will see that all you claims above are false.

In GT/Soteriology I have been interacting with some Calvinists. Like me they are fed up with misrepresentation.

 

[twin1954]

What rubbish. It makes none of your false claims as I am sure you know deep down.

If you do not then I suggest visit Society of Evangelical Arminians website. You, or anyone else, will see that all you claims above are false.

In GT/Soteriology I have been interacting with some Calvinists. Like me they are fed up with misrepresentation.

I am sorry but each claim is a simple logical conclusion based on years of knowledge of Arminian thought and practice. The fact that you cannot see them is because you are not actually thinking or considering them. I can prove each claim logically if you so desire.

 

[Patmos]

Calvinist Marvin in Soteriology suggested to me this book.

Hand in Hand
by Randy Alcorn (Author)

Having read the preview I ordered the book from Amazon. The preview shoots down all of the kind of drivel as shown in post 162 above. I recommend anyone interested in Arminianism vs Calvinism to buy it. It would save a lot of heat.

 

[Patmos]

I am sorry but each claim is a simple logical conclusion based on years of knowledge of Arminian thought and practice. The fact that you cannot see them is because you are not actually thinking or considering them. I can prove each claim logically if you so desire.

Simple logical conclusion - of course you know the mind of God!

Go on prove your stuff - without falsely alleging what others believe.

This 'fact' I cannot see or not actually thinking them. You do not know what I can see, what I am thinking or have ever considered, let alone the mind of God.

To repeat, it is not just the Calvinist fraternity in GT/Soteriology are fed up with misrepresentation.

 

[Patmos]

I am sorry but each claim is a simple logical conclusion based on years of knowledge of Arminian thought and practice. The fact that you cannot see them is because you are not actually thinking or considering them. I can prove each claim logically if you so desire.

For anyone -

Please visit Society of Evangelical Arminians website to see what they actually say. To read what they actually believe and claim.

 

[twin1954]

It is inconsistent in that it claims that choosing to believe is not a work but has no logical reason why it isn't. It is inconsistent in that it makes the love of God a useless emotion while claiming that the love of God is what saves us.

Simple elementary logic establishes this as fact. What good did the love of God do for all those who end up in eternal damnation? God's love is reduced to a powerless and useless emotion just like a man's if Arminianism is true. It actually does nothing for the objects of His love who do not allow Him by their free will choice. They are able to thwart the love of God by not accepting His offer of salvation and make Him to be frustrated and an object of pity to all who look on Him. What other conclusion can be drawn from a love that cannot accomplish what it desires to do?

It is inconsistent in that it makes the accomplished atonement of Christ a useless thing unless man does something to give it power.

The atonement of Christ is the linchpin and crux of the Gospel. How is it good news to a dead sinner that God will save him if he only will do something that no dead man can do? What good is an atonement that doesn't atone unless man gives it power by his free will belief? Again there is no good news in a possible atonement only in an accomplished atonement. How many times have you heard the Arminain preacher tell sinners that God has done His part but now they must do theirs? How many times have you heard the Arminain preacher tell sinners that they can be saved if only they would let God save them? What use is the blood of Christ to save if it cannot do so for those who God is supposed to love?

It is inconsistent in that it takes the glory of God and gives it to men all the while claiming that the glory belongs to God.

Where is the glory if God cannot do what He desire to do to save sinners if they will not let Him. The glory belongs to those who did something by their free will. They must have done something that those in damnation didn't do and therefore the glory belongs to them.

It is inconsistent in many ways.

I could go on and on but this is sufficient I think.

 

[Patmos]

Simple elementary logic establishes this as fact. What good did the love of God do for all those who end up in eternal damnation? God's love is reduced to a powerless and useless emotion just like a man's if Arminianism is true. It actually does nothing for the objects of His love who do not allow Him by their free will choice. They are able to thwart the love of God by not accepting His offer of salvation and make Him to be frustrated and an object of pity to all who look on Him. What other conclusion can be drawn from a love that cannot accomplish what it desires to do?
The atonement of Christ is the linchpin and crux of the Gospel. How is it good news to a dead sinner that God will save him if he only will do something that no dead man can do? What good is an atonement that doesn't atone unless man gives it power by his free will belief? Again there is no good news in a possible atonement only in an accomplished atonement. How many times have you heard the Arminain preacher tell sinners that God has done His part but now they must do theirs? How many times have you heard the Arminain preacher tell sinners that they can be saved if only they would let God save them? What use is the blood of Christ to save if it cannot do so for those who God is supposed to love? Where is the glory if God cannot do what He desire to do to save sinners if they will not let Him. The glory belongs to those who did something by their free will. They must have done something that those in damnation didn't do and therefore the glory belongs to them. I could go on and on but this is sufficient I think.

Twin towers, you are answering your own post 162. Along with your false allegations on what you allege others think and believe, even when you have been directed to a web site which expounds what they believe, and expounds that their beliefs are in total contradiction to you false allegations.

Why do you put false allegation in other peoples mouth in the first place ? Bearing false witness is NOT Christian.

Incidentally your avatar, you say your faith is not Christian. Why then are you posting on a Christian forum ?

 

[Patmos]

"Simple elementary logic establishes this as fact. What good did the love of God do for all those who end up in eternal damnation?"

But the Bible says:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost."

IMPORTANT update. Some guy called Jesus said this.

Whom should we choose to believe ?

Oops, I meant

Whom should we believe ?

 

[Patmos]

"What other conclusion can be drawn from a love that cannot accomplish what it desires to do?"

Um, that you are a nasty and not nice person. Also d aftfor even thinking this one up.

 

[Patmos]

"The atonement of Christ is the linchpin and crux of the Gospel."
Arminianism, good. Also honest Calvinism position, Also good.

"How is it good news to a dead sinner that God will save him if he only will do something that no dead man can do?"
Yet these dead men eat, sleep, have sex, pay tax, drive ambulances, fight for the nation etc etc etc. Don't seem that dead huh ? as for "do something", wowsers, is not the evangelical message to repent and believe ? Yes it is. Why is God supposedly directing man to say this to man who he made incapable of hearing. INCONSISTENT - big time.

 

[Patmos]

I could go on and take this idiotic individual apart. But this is enough for now, I think.

Message for Calvinists. I am (an Arminian) NOT against you. My best mate and drinking partner is a die hard Calvinist. I am against those who talk rubbish and make false allegation.

 

[Patmos]

OK I was going to stop but this one was IRRESISTIBLE.

"How many times have you heard the Arminain preacher tell sinners that God has done His part but now they must do theirs? How many times have you heard the Arminain preacher tell sinners that they can be saved if only they would let God save them?"

Read Charles Spurgeon, sonny. FYI Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist who said EXACTLY what you say above. You need to read and imbibe his most famous sermon on this precise topic - Sermon 1516. Google it and educate yourself.

 

[Bluelion]

So what do you see as God's plan. Does it include these extreme examples?

1. The rape of 5 year old girls;
2. Murder;
3. The evil executed by IS in the middle east;
4. September 11;
5. Hitler's Nazi Germany and its genocide;
6. etc.

I'm not quite understanding your view of God's plan. Does it involve secondary causes like Hitler and his associates in Germany.

Oz

Thank you for asking Oz. I do believe God has a plan and the core of it is love. God's love for us and our love for God. God wants us to follow Him out of love. I think you questions could be answer in why does evil exist, when God is all powerful. I have done much research on the matter and my short answer is free will. Evil exist so that man may have the right to free will. If there is only good, and a person does good who can say whether he wanted to do good or did it because there was no choice. So as it was we followed God by default. Now for there to be choice there must be an opposite to good, evil. Only by evil being allowed to be can a person have a choice between Good. So evil is allowed to be for a time so that all might be present with choice of who we will serve. Which is back by the age of the gentile and age of the Jew and judgement day and an end to evil which is promised. All must be given the choice and even Angels have this choice. For that reason evil is allowed to be. God being all powerful could stop evil any time he wanted, but to do so would end free will to choose. God does intervene some times, such as the flood, and even with Adam and Eve with Jesus. God wrote into his plan allowing and Knowing Adams and Eve's choice to sin and used it as a way to show His great Love, Grace. Mercy, Glory, Righteousness, and Holiness. God often brings forth good from evil.

So what I believe is evil is allowed to be for a time so everyone has a chance to make a choice between Good and evil. Or who they will serve.

 

[Bluelion]

Patmos,

Your going to find many Calvinist on this site argument is a straw man logical fallacies. *staff edit*

You must take what is said with a grain of salt. Most people on here have a google search education at best. People like me and Oz have higher education and most people who do enjoy debating what they have learned with others. Those which lack education often attack others and commit logical fallacies to try to make up for the lack of knowledge, when all else fails they will correct your grammar, when there is not any better and would not be allowed in an academic setting. I am not saying a person has to have higher education to debate. Now faith is not formally trained but has spend many many years in the baptist church. His knowledge is very much on point and good quality even though we disagree on certain things.

If i could give you a bit of advice it would be to use ignore and debate with those who are willing to concede to being wrong.

I hope you enjoy your self on the site and you find many fruit conversations. God Bless.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for asking Oz. I do believe God has a plan and the core of it is love. God's love for us and our love for God. God wants us to follow Him out of love. I think you questions could be answer in why does evil exist, when God is all powerful. I have done much research on the matter and my short answer is free will. Evil exist so that man may have the right to free will. If there is only good, and a person does good who can say whether he wanted to do good or did it because there was no choice. So as it was we followed God by default. Now for there to be choice there must be an opposite to good, evil. Only by evil being allowed to be can a person have a choice between Good. So evil is allowed to be for a time so that all might be present with choice of who we will serve. Which is back by the age of the gentile and age of the Jew and judgement day and an end to evil which is promised. All must be given the choice and even Angels have this choice. For that reason evil is allowed to be. God being all powerful could stop evil any time he wanted, but to do so would end free will to choose. God does intervene some times, such as the flood, and even with Adam and Eve with Jesus. God wrote into his plan allowing and Knowing Adams and Eve's choice to sin and used it as a way to show His great Love, Grace. Mercy, Glory, Righteousness, and Holiness. God often brings forth good from evil.

So what I believe is evil is allowed to be for a time so everyone has a chance to make a choice between Good and evil. Or who they will serve.

So, you seem to be indicating that secondary causes are used by God (Hitler, rapists, terrorists & Sept 11, etc) but these are in his plan. He didn't cause them but allowed people use their free wills to perpetrate them.

How then do you deal with Isa 45:7 (ESV),

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.​

Oz