Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[kangaroodort]

For those who suggest that the Reformation Theology of Luther was built on nothing but Scripture alone and was just restoring the pristine historical Christian faith, consider the following:

Methodius, a Christian Martyr, writing near the end of the 3rd century:

"Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils." Methodius The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16

Luther appeals to the pagans and heathens to support his doctrine of determinism:

"But why should these things be so difficult for we Christians to understand, so that it should be considered irreligious, curious, and vain to discuss and know them, when heathen poets, and common people themselves, have in their mouths in the most frequent use? How often does Virgil [a pagan Roman poet] alone make mention of Fate? "All these things stand fixed by unchangeable law." Again, "Fixed is the day of every man." Again, "If the Fates summon you." And again, If you will break the binding chain of Fate."

"The aim of this poet is to show that in the destruction of Troy, and in the raising of the Roman empire, fate did more than all the devoted efforts of men....From which we could see that the knowledge of predestination and of foreknowledge of God was no less left in the world than the notion of divinity itself. And those who wished to appear wise went so far into their debates that their hearts being darkened became fools (Rom. 1:21, 22). They denied, or pretended not to know those things which their poets, and the common folk, and even their own consciences, held to be universally known, most certain, most true." Luther, Bondage, pp. 43,44.

_____________

So here is an admission from Luther that his doctrines were more in harmony with what the heathens and pagan Roman poets have believed, than what the early church believed. And the implication is that since the pagan poets agree with Luther, that must mean that this was a universally revealed truth from God in line with what Paul has to say in Romans 1! What about the other things pagans believe? Why aren't they included as universally divinely revealed truths?

As Methodius notes, and as is evidenced all through the earliest Christian writings, the early church was born in a culture that was saturated with fatalism and deterministic ideas, and yet all of the earliest Christian writers rejected divine determinism and strongly defended free will. You won't find any of them defending determinism on the basis that it was revealed to the Gnostics and pagans of their time in accordance with Rom. 1. If determinism was so clearly taught in the Scriptures and by the Apostles, and if the culture itself was so friendly to deterministic ideals, why would the early church so strongly and consistently oppose determinism and affirm free will?

It was suggested here that Arminius' rejection of determinism was just a return to "Rome". If that is the case, we could just as easily say that Luther's determinism was a return to "paganism" and "Gnosticism." Does this mean that Calvinism cannot possibly be true? No. But it does reveal the major problem Calvinism has with regards to historical precedence in the church, and it contradicts the common Calvinist refrain that Calvinism and the Reformation was just a return to true historical Christianity in it's affirmation of determinism, irresistible grace, limited atonement, inevitable perseverance, etc. (though, again, Luther did not hold to limited atonement or inevitable perseverance, so he was not a Calvinist).

 

[kangaroodort]

But does not the inevitability of God's unfolding plan include our choices?

In Arminianism, yes, because God can work through our choices or in spite of our choices. Our free choices do not intimidate Him. And part of God's plan was to allow us the freedom to make choices. But in Calvinism "choice" is incoherent, since everything we think or do is the inevitable result of an irresistible eternal decree. If you can only think or do what God decreed for you to think or do then there is never any "choice" to be made, because there is never any real alternative to what God has irresistibly decreed. To say we can ever only do but the one thing we have been decreed to do is basically the very definition of not having a choice. So Calvinism that posits "choice" is incoherent as it is affirming that we can make choices when we have no choice. And since Scripture is clear that we do have choices and do make choices, Calvinism is at odds with Scripture and even renders God essentially deceptive in affirmation that we both have choices and the ability to make choices. I explained this in my post on The Reality of Choice and the Testimony of Scripture:

"The more significant problem is that when we speak of choices we are speaking of the reality of the situation and not just how things may appear to be. If I tell someone they have a choice when in fact I know that in reality only one course of action is available, then I am being deceptive in saying that the person has a choice. The person may believe he has a choice, and even believe he made a choice, but the truth is that the person does not actually have choices as there is only one possible course of action available. So if I told a person that he had a choice when he really (in reality) did not have a choice, then it would be seen at once that I was being deceptive and speaking lies.

Truth has to do with reality, how things really (truly) are, and not how things merely seem to be. In fact, the word “deceptive” is most naturally employed when speaking of how things merely appear to be when in fact they are not as they seem. To speak a lie is simply to speak of what is contrary to reality, and therefore what is also contrary to truth. So the conclusion seems inescapable that it is deceptive and contrary to truth (lying) to tell someone they have a choice, when in fact they do not. It then becomes immediately apparent that God would be guilty of gross deception since the Bible reveals that God both gives people choices, and commands them to make choices. Consider the words of Moses to the Israelites,

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity…I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse [A choice is given by God, i.e. they have a choice]. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendents [Having given them a choice, God then commands them to make a choice]. (Deut. 30:15, 19)

Clearly the Israelites are given a real choice in this passage. God makes it clear through Moses that He has set before them life, prosperity and blessing on the one side, and death, adversity and the curse on the other. The language is very intentional. They have two alternatives set before them and they are called on to choose between them. The choice is not only set before them but the gravity of the choice is made explicit, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you…”

Heaven and earth is called as a witness because they will be fully responsible for the choice they make and that responsibility lies in the reality of the possibilities set before them. They genuinely have a choice and they are being called on to make a choice in the most urgent manner possible. Not only does God call on them to choose but persuades them to make the right choice, “So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendents.” God demands that they choose between the alternatives set before them and expresses His desire that they choose life rather than death. However, despite God’s expressed desire for them to choose life, He leaves the choice to them and for that reason calls heaven and earth as a witness against them.

This scenario simply does not fit the Calvinistic scheme. If all of their actions are predetermined by God, then there is no choice to be made and no reason to call heaven and earth as a witness against them (concerning the choice they will make and the consequences that will follow). If their actions are predetermined from eternity, then only one course of action is really set before them and there is no alternative. They would really have no choice but to do exactly as God has predetermined, and if that is the case, then God is being deceptive in telling them they do have a choice, that they really can choose between two alternatives, and that the reality of that choice is the basis of their responsibility before God (and God’s expressed desire for them to choose life would be directly contradicted by His eternal decree of reprobation for some). This is further demonstrated when we consider Moses’ words in verses 11-14,

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach…No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. (emphasis mine)

It is extremely important to notice that Moses tells the people that they are fully capable of making the right choice (which is reinforced by God’s desire that they choose life in verse 19). This militates strongly against any form of determinism, for according to necessitarian dogma it is quite untrue that it was not too difficult for many of them to obey.[3] Those who disobeyed (and many surely did) could not possibly have done otherwise than to disobey if determinism is true. However, Moses made it clear that all who heard his voice were indeed capable of obeying the divine command and firmly rebuked any who might dare to declare otherwise.

This again establishes the basis of responsibility and accountability on the reality of choice (i.e. the ability to choose between real alternatives). If the ones who chose not to follow the divine command had been predetermined to follow after death according to the irrevocable necessity of a divine decree, Moses could not say of them that they were capable of making the right choice. He could not say that the choice was set before them so that they “may obey it.” To the contrary, if those who followed after death did so of divine necessity, then the only purpose for Moses’ words would be for their condemnation and not so that they “may obey it.” The purpose of Moses’ words for them would be only so they could disobey it in accordance with God’s irrevocable and irresistible eternal decree. But the testimony of these passages is clearly against such a view.

So we have God setting before the people two alternatives. We have God calling on them to choose between those alternatives. We have God calling on heaven and earth as a witness against them in making that choice. We have God expressing His desire that they choose life instead of death. We have God telling the people that the right choice (to obey and live) is not beyond their capability (i.e. it is not “too difficult” or “beyond…reach”). We have God telling them that the word of promise is “very near” and “in your mouth and in your heart” so they “may obey it”, all of which is sheer nonsense if Calvinistic determinism is true.

If exhaustive determinism is true, then for those who disobeyed there was never any alternative to choose from (they had to disobey). Heaven and earth was called as a witness against their unavoidable act of disobedience. God’s express desire for them to choose life, rather than death, was deceptive and contradicted by His irrevocable and eternal predetermination that they disobey unto death, instead of obeying unto life. Moses was wrong to tell them that the choice of obedience and life was not beyond them or too difficult, for surely it was. It was not only too difficult but impossiblefor them. Moses was lying when he told them that the word of promise for obedience was “very near”, for the promise was never even a remote possibility for those who disobeyed. Moses was being deceptive when he said the word was in their mouth and heart that they “may obey it”, since obedience was as impossible for them as creating a universe.

This passage and numerous passages like it lay waste to the Calvinistic doctrine of exhaustive determinism. Passages like these are simply incompatible with such a doctrine, while the intentional language of such passages fits perfectly with the Arminian account of free will, and the accountability attached to the exercising of that God given power to choose. The alternative to a libertarian view of these passages has the unfortunate and inevitable consequence of making God into a liar who deceives His people into believing they are capable of making the right choice, when in reality it is impossible for them to choose at all. A predetermined choice is not a choice at all since it is the only course of action available. The best the Calvinist can offer is that God gives the illusion of choice while controlling the person’s every thought and action to conform to His infallible and irrevocable eternal decree."

 

[royal priest]

But even in a strictly human sense, how can we say someone is perfectly capable of choosing right, when they consistently demonstrate they are opposed to what is right and prefer what is wrong?

 

[kangaroodort]

But even in a strictly human sense, how can we say someone is perfectly capable of choosing right, when they consistently demonstrate they are opposed to what is right and prefer what is wrong?

To "prefer" something is essentially the same thing as to "choose" something. In fact , that is one definition of choosing- "preference". So this is like saying, how can we be capable of choosing one way if we choose another way? The way we choose, or even consistently choose, says nothing of the power we may have to choose otherwise.

 

[royal priest]

To "prefer" something is essentially the same thing as to "choose" something. In fact , that is one definition of choosing- "preference". So this is like saying, how can we be capable of choosing one way if we choose another way? The way we choose, or even consistently choose, says nothing of the power we may have to choose otherwise.

Unless we are asking a Muslim to choose to become a Christian. It would be impossible for him to do so on the basis of his preference for Islam.

 

[royal priest]

To "prefer" something is essentially the same thing as to "choose" something. In fact , that is one definition of choosing- "preference". So this is like saying, how can we be capable of choosing one way if we choose another way? The way we choose, or even consistently choose, says nothing of the power we may have to choose otherwise.

It would be like Moses telling an Israelite who secretly loved Baal to freely choose to follow God. His love of Baal would make him incapable of choosing otherwise.

 

[kangaroodort]

Unless we are asking a Muslim to choose to become a Christian. It would be impossible for him to do so on the basis of his preference for Islam.

Not if God enables him or her to do so. If God enables one to choose, then it is not impossible to choose.

 

[kangaroodort]

It would be like Moses telling an Israelite who secretly loved Baal to freely choose to follow God. His love of Baal would make him incapable of choosing otherwise.

But that just assumes what needs to be proved. That's called question begging. If God enables someone to love God rather than Baal, then they can certainly do so.

 

[twin1954]

For those who suggest that the Reformation Theology of Luther was built on nothing but Scripture alone and was just restoring the pristine historical Christian faith, consider the following:

Methodius, a Christian Martyr, writing near the end of the 3rd century:

"Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils." Methodius The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16

Luther appeals to the pagans and heathens to support his doctrine of determinism:

"But why should these things be so difficult for we Christians to understand, so that it should be considered irreligious, curious, and vain to discuss and know them, when heathen poets, and common people themselves, have in their mouths in the most frequent use? How often does Virgil [a pagan Roman poet] alone make mention of Fate? "All these things stand fixed by unchangeable law." Again, "Fixed is the day of every man." Again, "If the Fates summon you." And again, If you will break the binding chain of Fate."

"The aim of this poet is to show that in the destruction of Troy, and in the raising of the Roman empire, fate did more than all the devoted efforts of men....From which we could see that the knowledge of predestination and of foreknowledge of God was no less left in the world than the notion of divinity itself. And those who wished to appear wise went so far into their debates that their hearts being darkened became fools (Rom. 1:21, 22). They denied, or pretended not to know those things which their poets, and the common folk, and even their own consciences, held to be universally known, most certain, most true." Luther, Bondage, pp. 43,44.

_____________

So here is an admission from Luther that his doctrines were more in harmony with what the heathens and pagan Roman poets have believed, than what the early church believed. And the implication is that since the pagan poets agree with Luther, that must mean that this was a universally revealed truth from God in line with what Paul has to say in Romans 1! What about the other things pagans believe? Why aren't they included as universally divinely revealed truths?

As Methodius notes, and as is evidenced all through the earliest Christian writings, the early church was born in a culture that was saturated with fatalism and deterministic ideas, and yet all of the earliest Christian writers rejected divine determinism and strongly defended free will. You won't find any of them defending determinism on the basis that it was revealed to the Gnostics and pagans of their time in accordance with Rom. 1. If determinism was so clearly taught in the Scriptures and by the Apostles, and if the culture itself was so friendly to deterministic ideals, why would the early church so strongly and consistently oppose determinism and affirm free will?

It was suggested here that Arminius' rejection of determinism was just a return to "Rome". If that is the case, we could just as easily say that Luther's determinism was a return to "paganism" and "Gnosticism." Does this mean that Calvinism cannot possibly be true? No. But it does reveal the major problem Calvinism has with regards to historical precedence in the church, and it contradicts the common Calvinist refrain that Calvinism and the Reformation was just a return to true historical Christianity in it's affirmation of determinism, irresistible grace, limited atonement, inevitable perseverance, etc. (though, again, Luther did not hold to limited atonement or inevitable perseverance, so he was not a Calvinist).

This is a blatantly dishonest use of the statements made by Luther. It has nothing to do with the context of his statements and the reasons that he made them. The simple fact is that both Luther and Calvin said many things that I believe were in error but that in no way infers the conclusion that everything they said was in error. Not only is this a dishonest tactic but implies a weak argument. It is a red herring that ignores the obvious.

 

[twin1954]

In Arminianism, yes, because God can work through our choices or in spite of our choices. Our free choices do not intimidate Him. And part of God's plan was to allow us the freedom to make choices. But in Calvinism "choice" is incoherent, since everything we think or do is the inevitable result of an irresistible eternal decree. If you can only think or do what God decreed for you to think or do then there is never any "choice" to be made, because there is never any real alternative to what God has irresistibly decreed. To say we can ever only do but the one thing we have been decreed to do is basically the very definition of not having a choice. So Calvinism that posits "choice" is incoherent as it is affirming that we can make choices when we have no choice. And since Scripture is clear that we do have choices and do make choices, Calvinism is at odds with Scripture and even renders God essentially deceptive in affirmation that we both have choices and the ability to make choices. I explained this in my post on The Reality of Choice and the Testimony of Scripture:

"The more significant problem is that when we speak of choices we are speaking of the reality of the situation and not just how things may appear to be. If I tell someone they have a choice when in fact I know that in reality only one course of action is available, then I am being deceptive in saying that the person has a choice. The person may believe he has a choice, and even believe he made a choice, but the truth is that the person does not actually have choices as there is only one possible course of action available. So if I told a person that he had a choice when he really (in reality) did not have a choice, then it would be seen at once that I was being deceptive and speaking lies.

Truth has to do with reality, how things really (truly) are, and not how things merely seem to be. In fact, the word “deceptive” is most naturally employed when speaking of how things merely appear to be when in fact they are not as they seem. To speak a lie is simply to speak of what is contrary to reality, and therefore what is also contrary to truth. So the conclusion seems inescapable that it is deceptive and contrary to truth (lying) to tell someone they have a choice, when in fact they do not. It then becomes immediately apparent that God would be guilty of gross deception since the Bible reveals that God both gives people choices, and commands them to make choices. Consider the words of Moses to the Israelites,



Clearly the Israelites are given a real choice in this passage. God makes it clear through Moses that He has set before them life, prosperity and blessing on the one side, and death, adversity and the curse on the other. The language is very intentional. They have two alternatives set before them and they are called on to choose between them. The choice is not only set before them but the gravity of the choice is made explicit, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you…”

Heaven and earth is called as a witness because they will be fully responsible for the choice they make and that responsibility lies in the reality of the possibilities set before them. They genuinely have a choice and they are being called on to make a choice in the most urgent manner possible. Not only does God call on them to choose but persuades them to make the right choice, “So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendents.” God demands that they choose between the alternatives set before them and expresses His desire that they choose life rather than death. However, despite God’s expressed desire for them to choose life, He leaves the choice to them and for that reason calls heaven and earth as a witness against them.

This scenario simply does not fit the Calvinistic scheme. If all of their actions are predetermined by God, then there is no choice to be made and no reason to call heaven and earth as a witness against them (concerning the choice they will make and the consequences that will follow). If their actions are predetermined from eternity, then only one course of action is really set before them and there is no alternative. They would really have no choice but to do exactly as God has predetermined, and if that is the case, then God is being deceptive in telling them they do have a choice, that they really can choose between two alternatives, and that the reality of that choice is the basis of their responsibility before God (and God’s expressed desire for them to choose life would be directly contradicted by His eternal decree of reprobation for some). This is further demonstrated when we consider Moses’ words in verses 11-14,



It is extremely important to notice that Moses tells the people that they are fully capable of making the right choice (which is reinforced by God’s desire that they choose life in verse 19). This militates strongly against any form of determinism, for according to necessitarian dogma it is quite untrue that it was not too difficult for many of them to obey.[3] Those who disobeyed (and many surely did) could not possibly have done otherwise than to disobey if determinism is true. However, Moses made it clear that all who heard his voice were indeed capable of obeying the divine command and firmly rebuked any who might dare to declare otherwise.

This again establishes the basis of responsibility and accountability on the reality of choice (i.e. the ability to choose between real alternatives). If the ones who chose not to follow the divine command had been predetermined to follow after death according to the irrevocable necessity of a divine decree, Moses could not say of them that they were capable of making the right choice. He could not say that the choice was set before them so that they “may obey it.” To the contrary, if those who followed after death did so of divine necessity, then the only purpose for Moses’ words would be for their condemnation and not so that they “may obey it.” The purpose of Moses’ words for them would be only so they could disobey it in accordance with God’s irrevocable and irresistible eternal decree. But the testimony of these passages is clearly against such a view.

So we have God setting before the people two alternatives. We have God calling on them to choose between those alternatives. We have God calling on heaven and earth as a witness against them in making that choice. We have God expressing His desire that they choose life instead of death. We have God telling the people that the right choice (to obey and live) is not beyond their capability (i.e. it is not “too difficult” or “beyond…reach”). We have God telling them that the word of promise is “very near” and “in your mouth and in your heart” so they “may obey it”, all of which is sheer nonsense if Calvinistic determinism is true.

If exhaustive determinism is true, then for those who disobeyed there was never any alternative to choose from (they had to disobey). Heaven and earth was called as a witness against their unavoidable act of disobedience. God’s express desire for them to choose life, rather than death, was deceptive and contradicted by His irrevocable and eternal predetermination that they disobey unto death, instead of obeying unto life. Moses was wrong to tell them that the choice of obedience and life was not beyond them or too difficult, for surely it was. It was not only too difficult but impossiblefor them. Moses was lying when he told them that the word of promise for obedience was “very near”, for the promise was never even a remote possibility for those who disobeyed. Moses was being deceptive when he said the word was in their mouth and heart that they “may obey it”, since obedience was as impossible for them as creating a universe.

This passage and numerous passages like it lay waste to the Calvinistic doctrine of exhaustive determinism. Passages like these are simply incompatible with such a doctrine, while the intentional language of such passages fits perfectly with the Arminian account of free will, and the accountability attached to the exercising of that God given power to choose. The alternative to a libertarian view of these passages has the unfortunate and inevitable consequence of making God into a liar who deceives His people into believing they are capable of making the right choice, when in reality it is impossible for them to choose at all. A predetermined choice is not a choice at all since it is the only course of action available. The best the Calvinist can offer is that God gives the illusion of choice while controlling the person’s every thought and action to conform to His infallible and irrevocable eternal decree."

I will respond to this when I have more time. But suffice to say it is built on a straw man and has nothing to do with the truth of determinism.

 

[kangaroodort]

I am out of time fro today. I know it some do not like to follow links, but I highly recommend these posts which do a great job showing the problems with how Calvinists often seem to reason on this subject of free will and choosing, etc.

Here are three that deal with this subject (though the whole serious deals with a variety of topics)

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ll-what-makes-us-choose-one-way-or-the-other/

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...getics-–-fallacy-5-choices-apart-from-intent/

The whole series is great

 

[JM]

 

[royal priest]

But that just assumes what needs to be proved. That's called question begging. If God enables someone to love God rather than Baal, then they can certainly do so.

If they were perfectly capable of freely choosing, why did they need God to enable them?

 

[kangaroodort]

The simple fact is that both Luther and Calvin said many things that I believe were in error but that in no way infers the conclusion that everything they said was in error.

Please point me to where I said this means everything they said is in error? I actually said exactly the opposite:

"Does this mean that Calvinism cannot possibly be true? No. But it does reveal the major problem Calvinism has with regards to historical precedence in the church, and it contradicts the common Calvinist refrain that Calvinism and the Reformation was just a return to true historical Christianity in it's affirmation of determinism, irresistible grace, limited atonement, inevitable perseverance, etc. (though, again, Luther did not hold to limited atonement or inevitable perseverance, so he was not a Calvinist)."

I made it clear what the purpose of the post was, though you seemed to have missed it. This was in response to several posts which made the errant claim that the Reformers were all Calvinists (they were not, not even Luther was), that because Arminius held to free will and rejected determinism, that means he was departing from Protestantism and returning to "Rome", and that Monergism is representative of the historic Christian faith (it is not), etc., etc. I wonder if you would also say that ignoring context and specific language in this post in order to accuse me of being "dishonest" in saying that Luther or the Reformers were wrong about everything (which I specifically denied) is a case of "dishonesty" on your part? I am out of time for today. Please read more carefully next time. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Maybe we should call this" Memetexting"

 

[JM]

Haha. Kanga, I hope you are not too ticked at me. I'm really just having some fun.

"I was an Arminian once...until I read my Bible."

 

[royal priest]

I am out of time fro today. I know it some do not like to follow links, but I highly recommend these posts which do a great job showing the problems with how Calvinists often seem to reason on this subject of free will and choosing, etc.

Here are three that deal with this subject (though the whole serious deals with a variety of topics)

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ll-what-makes-us-choose-one-way-or-the-other/

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-–-fallacy-5-choices-apart-from-intent/

The whole series is great

A quote from the first article:
“Calvinistic apologists often employ such fallacies in attempts to prove that libertarian free will is nonsensical, but looking to God as an example of how the will functions, we can see that a being with a free will can make choices without them being necessitated by something outside of its own will. For example, there was no principle in God that impelled Him to save anyone, but He chose to anyway. If God is truly free, then it’s absurd to argue that there are conceptual problems with the very idea of free will, and hence no tenable logical basis to argue that it couldn’t exist in human beings.”

This article only makes the libertarian argument more nonsensical. Primarily, because it makes a false assertion about God’s choice in election. For instance, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29.

The second aforementioned article dealt strictly with some of the philosophical arguments presented by some Calvinists. I actually share the authors frustration that some of these arguments are lame. However, in his conclusion, the author misrepresents the Calvinist position of a sinner’s ability to come to Christ. The Calvinist position is that prior to regeneration, the moral depravity of the unconverted is total, and absolute; permeating every facet of his being. It is therefore only at the point in which the Spirit quickens the soul, that man is able to truly comprehend and apprehend his need for redemption in Christ.

The third article deals with the issue of “the power of contrary choice.” The author asserts that Calvinists deny such a thing, but I am not familiar with any who actually do. The Bible certainly speaks to these things. For example, there's Christ during His passion in Gethsemane; David's refusal to confess his sin regarding Bathsheba, and Paul's admission in Romans 7.

Personally, I don't think those articles really help any of us to understand where the other stands on these issues.

 

[JM]

I am out of time fro today. I know it some do not like to follow links, but I highly recommend these posts which do a great job showing the problems with how Calvinists often seem to reason on this subject of free will and choosing, etc.

Here are three that deal with this subject (though the whole serious deals with a variety of topics)

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ll-what-makes-us-choose-one-way-or-the-other/

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-–-fallacy-5-choices-apart-from-intent/

The whole series is great

Beware of Arminiantexting! Do not visit the site linked above. Not only does it contain the deadly Arminian virus it's also a shameless plug to boost his stats. Lol

 

[kangaroodort]

Haha. Kanga, I hope you are not too ticked at me. I'm really just having some fun.

"I was an Arminian once...until I read my Bible."

Just as the reason I never became a Calvinist is because I read my Bible. And for several testimonies of Calvinists leaving Calvinism, see here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/x-calvinist-corner/

This one is especially interesting, written by a former Presbyterian pastor who walked away from Calvinism (and had to give up his church as a result) primarily because as he preached through the Bible he began to realize that the so called Calvinist prooftexts he had always found convincing did not really support Calvinism after all. His willingness to pursue and and follow follow truth wherever it leads, even to the point of losing his ministry and livelihood, is a powerful testimony of courage we could all learn from:

"When I was ordained as a minister of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in 1999, I enthusiastically affirmed my agreement with its Calvinistic/Reformed doctrinal statement, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). That same night, I also vowed that if I ever found myself out of accord with its teaching, I would take the initiative to notify my Presbytery (the regional ecclesiastical body) that my views had changed. I did not expect to have to keep that promise because I had been Reformed since my first semester seminary in 1992 and “knew” that I was right. But fifteen years later, in April 2014, it became necessary for me to notify my Presbytery that I no longer adhere to its confessional standards; I no longer believe that Calvinism is biblical teaching.

I had chosen a Reformed school not because I agreed with Reformed theology (RT), but because a favorite pastor taught there. But I quickly embraced Calvinism because I desperately wanted to understand how Scripture fit together, and my professors were offering me a comprehensive ready-made system that explained 1,200 pages of divine revelation. They were wiser than I by far, and could mount a massive number of verses that appeared to teach TULIP. I had neither the time nor the skill to test their interpretation of Scripture. And besides, God’s knowledge is infinitely greater than mine; so even if his word taught that he ordains whatsoever comes to pass – including the salvation or damnation of all people – I was going to worship him on his terms.

So for the next 20 years I would be a staunch Calvinist, convinced that it was simply the teaching of God’s word. I sincerely believed it, taught it, and defended it. I even wrote a study on the WCF, explaining the intricacies of the system and answering common objections to it.

But several things eventually led to me reconsider the views of almost all my teachers, colleagues, friends, and heroes. The first was that an acquaintance gave me a copy of a book written by a “Reformed Arminian”. I read it out of curiosity, and though it did not persuade me in the least it did challenge my prejudice against Arminians. Scripture seemed clear about RT, so I had assumed that anyone who denied it was either ignorant or insolent. Some had not read the Bible carefully enough and others just could not stomach God as he revealed himself to be. But this book offered a clear alternative to Calvinism and intelligently interacted with its favorite proof texts. The author did not convince me, but he did give me a new category: there were non-Calvinists who had taken the Bible to heart and honestly believed that it taught God’s desire to save all.

The second thing that contributed to my journey out of Calvinism is that I became better acquainted with its teaching. In seminary I had accepted RT in principle, but had not had time to work out the details in my own mind. During decade after graduation I had more time to read Reformed theologians like Calvin, Edwards, Frame, and Reymond; I came to understand what RT teaches about the divine decree – that libertarian freedom is an illusion; that God effects his eternal plan by determining and controlling our desires; that we are responsible for sin not because we could have done otherwise, but because we did what we wanted to do (even though God determined that we would want to sin). I accepted this teaching, again, because I thought Scripture taught it. But it introduced tension into my thinking that would weigh more and more heavily upon me over the years to come.

The third thing that set me on the course to reject RT was the thing that had led me into it – Scripture itself. As a pastor I preached through books of the Bible verse by verse. Occasionally I would encounter a common Calvinistic proof text and realize that it did not necessarily say what I had thought it said. John 3 does not necessarily teach that regeneration precedes faith; John 10 does not necessarily teach that Jesus died only for the elect; Eph 1 does not necessarily teach that God ordained whatever happens; 1 Pet 1 does not necessarily teach that God elected individuals for salvation – unconditionally, effectually, exclusively. Once again, these discoveries did not shake my confidence in RT. There were too many passages that clearly taught it; I considered Romans 9 impregnable to Arminian assault. But I realized that the quantity of verses used to support my view did not matter if, upon closer scrutiny, they could not bear the weight that we Calvinists were putting on them on a case-by-case basis.

I remained a committed Calvinist by choice and wanted to silence the issues that were bothering me, so on vacation in October 2012 I decided to shore up my confidence by reading some Reformed writers. But my plan backfired: I began with a small booklet about election; the author opened by stating his case from Eph 1:4 – a verse that I had studied when teaching through Ephesians the previous year. I had been struck by the parallels between Deut 4:37; 7:6-11 and this text: In the former, God says that he chose the Israelites to be his holy people because he loved them for the sake of their fathers; in the latter, Paul says that God chose “us” to be holy in Christ, which may easily mean “for the sake of Christ”. Election was a corporate, vocational, conditional concept for Israel; perhaps it was the same thing for Christians (see 1 Pet 2:9-10). Whatever the case, I knew that there was a lot of room to interpret Eph 1:4 differently than this author did. He was building his case for election on a verse that I knew could not bear that weight, and I began to wonder what would happen to other classic proof texts if examined more carefully, without Calvinistic presuppositions.

I decided to spend my vacation differently: Instead of trying to bolster my confidence in RT I began to work my way through several texts ostensibly supporting the Calvinistic concept of unconditional election. I asked, “Is there another way to understand these passages?” To my surprise and chagrin, I found that there were not only alternative interpretations, but that they actually made better sense of the texts’ contexts.

That was a turning point in my life. For the first time I said, “Whatever it cost me (and I knew it could cost me everything), I want to know the truth.” I spent the next year and a half going back through Scripture, reading books on both sides of the issue, listening to debates and lectures, praying fervently, studying passages, and meditating deeply. Gradually, my questions about RT turned into doubts, and by the end of 2013 I realized that my doubts had turned into disbelief. I had not fully reconstructed my theology, but it was clear that I no longer found Calvinism coherent, much less biblical.

Some were later critical that I explored Arminianism privately, but it was prudent for two reasons: First, I had been exposed almost exclusively to Calvinistic theologians for 20 years; they had given me the lens through which I read Scripture. I needed to test that lens by the word of God, not the words of humans; I needed mental space to examine my beliefs without outside influences pressuring me to conform to an ecclesiastical standard; I needed to widen my intellectual dialogue to include voices from the breadth of Christ’s church and not just from one part of it. Second, I did not know what would happen if my Presbytery discovered my questions before I had drawn any conclusions; I was not ready to recant Calvinism and needed time to think through the issues. Now, from the outside, I have grave concerns about the ways that some Calvinists discourage dissent; and I fear that intimidation will keep most from ever even considering that they may be misguided.

In fulfillment of my ordination vow, I sent notice to my Presbytery in April 2014, and at the meeting that month stood before my professional peers to acknowledge that my views had changed. For the most part they responded as they should: They met with me, prayed for me, and asked me to take a study leave to reconsider the issue in dialogue with Reformed thinkers. I was grateful for that opportunity to “check my work” and used the time well; but 30 days later I could only say that my convictions had not changed. They had no choice, but to divest me of office at their next meeting in July. My credentials as a PCA minister were withdrawn, and I was no longer qualified to pastor the PCA congregation I was serving.

Some of my worst fears were realized, but this journey was for me a simple matter of faithfulness to Jesus. We are called to believe what we think Scripture teaches and to obey what we think Scripture requires, such as keeping one’s vows and swearing to one’s own harm. Sometimes our love for Jesus means that we must lose friends, approval, and job-security; but these are small matters alongside the pleasure of walking with him.

A couple of “friends” turned on me, but the biggest relief in this process was to find that most stood by me. Though they disagree with me, they have heard my heart and continue to love me, pray for me, even socialize with me; and I am grateful for this above all else. Calvinists and Arminians have said hurtful things to each other, so tempers can run high and suspicions can go deep. But I have felt no conceit or contempt in this journey. I disagree with them, but in their numbers are some of the finest men and women I have ever known. By God’s grace, I pray that my love for them will always temper my critique of RT – and keep me open to their criticism as well.

On one hand, I gained much more respect than I lost in this process. Many in the PCA still smart from the dishonesty of men who had lied in their ordination vows before their split from a mainline denomination in 1973; so they welcomed my honesty, even if they did not welcome my departure. But in a subtle way I have had to endure the loss of respect as well. Many Calvinists think as I did – Arminians are either ignorant or insolent. Since no one has been able to accuse me of either, I represent a problem to them. They are not ready to admit that I may have left RT for good reasons, so they have probed for the cause of my apostasy. No one has said this explicitly to me, but several have implied that I was brainwashed by reading the wrong authors and commentaries; and that is a condescending, disrespectful attitude that has been painful. But it has been good exercise for me to practice the example of Jesus “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (see 1 Pet 2:21-23). It is difficult not to demand honor from one’s opponents; but I wonder if this process was a rehearsal for tests we may all face as it becomes more costly to follow Jesus in this culture.

Finally, I lost my livelihood and have not yet recovered it. There have been seasons of desperation and even anger as I’ve asked why the Lord led me down this path that seems to lead nowhere. But he has provided for my family abundantly, and he has reminded me to worry not about how I’m going to pay the bills, but what pleases him (Prov 3:5-6; Matt 6:33).

In the end, this journey has not been about having the right answers, but following Jesus. I differ from some Arminians when I say that if, when I meet the Lord, I discover that Calvinists were right after all, I will fall on my face in worship, savor the sacrifice that covers sins committed in ignorance, and trust him for the grace to love him as he is. I am not seeking a man-centered religion more palatable to my ego, but have followed him down this path because I am zealous for his honor as a loving God, a just God, and a God who is so sovereign that he can make creatures who, like himself, are not scripted . . . but free and thus capable of loving and being loved by him. What I have found is a God that actually lives up to the glorious God preached by Calvinists."

 

[kangaroodort]

Beware of Arminiantexting! Do not visit the site linked above. Not only does it contain the deadly Arminian virus it's also a shameless plug to boost his stats. Lol

When you can't win an argument, just make fun of your opponent. Understandable. God bless.