Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[kangaroodort]

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.

I don't see how this follows. There is not much of an argument here, just an assertion with a reference to a Scripture without any explanation of how it applies to the article. Feel free to elaborate.

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.

Glad you agree that they are lame.

However, in his conclusion, the author misrepresents the Calvinist position of a sinner’s ability to come to Christ.

Could you please provide a quote for this supposed misrepresentation?

The Calvinist position is that prior to regeneration, the moral depravity of the unconverted is total, and absolute; permeating every facet of his being.

Total as in "permeating every facet of his being", right? Not "total" as in "as bad as one can possibly get", which typically all Calvinists reject (since it is so obviously false). Well, that is the Arminian position as well. Check out what Arminius had to say about sinners in their natural state:

"In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’ That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.”

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.

But it does not follow that God must regenerate a sinner in order to enable them to believe. If you think that God cannot overcome a sinner's depravity in order to make a faith response possible, maybe that just means you have a lower view of God and His abilities than I do ;-) And then there is the thorny problem that such a Calvinist contention finds no real support in Scripture, while the Scripture testifies over and over again that new spiritual life is received by faith as faith joins us to the source of life (Christ), and through faith we receive the Spirit of life, while Scripture nowhere puts spiritual life of any kind prior to faith. Just as Jesus testified in John 5, God certainly has the power to enable dead sinners to "hear" unto "life."

And also, if God being "sovereign" means that He controls the will of man, why can't He just control the sinner's will from unbelief to belief? Why is that too hard for God? Is it like God trying to turn the steering wheel of a man's will and it gets stuck, and the only thing he can do is to add some "regeneration" to the wheel to get it moving again?

Man is totally depraved, but there is no reason to think that God cannot overcome that depravity in order to make a faith response possible. And there is no Biblical reason to think that this enabling must be regeneration. In fact, just the opposite.

 

[kangaroodort]

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.

Well, then I would suggest you are just not very familiar with historic Calvinism as it absolutely denies the power of contrary choice. The power of contrary choice is just one way to describe libertarian free will. Calvinists deny libertarian free will, and so they deny the power of contrary choice (or as I would prefer to call it "alternative choice"). If the passages you mention here prove the power of contrary choice then they disprove historic Calvinism as historic Calvinism is fully deterministic which makes contrary choice impossible (you can't choose contrary to God's exhaustively deterministic eternal decree).

Now some Calvinists still think that we "choose", but this is used not in the sense of the power of contrary choice, but in the sense of compatibilism. But the use of "choice" is simply incoherent in Calvinism as one cannot choose if all of one's thoughts, volitions and actions have been meticulously predetermined. And compatibilistic "choice" is still predetermined, and so not any sort of real "choosing" at all. It asserts that we are "free" if we are able to do "what we want to do", but also asserts that all of our desires that necessitate our "choices" are likewise predetermined. In other words, we have no control over our "want to." So saying we are free because we can do what we want to do when what we want to do is irresistibly predetermined is not really saying anything. So what the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away, which is why "compatibilism" is incoherent.

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

Sorry you feel that way. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

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

Nobody claimed that they were free to choose God without divine enabling. It is divine enabling that makes a "choice"
possible, where depravity has previously rendered such a choice impossible.

 

[kangaroodort]

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.

Looking forward to it.

 

[JM]

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

Or claim they are "proof texting, proof texting!"

 

[JM]

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]

Or yell "proof texting, proof texting!"

Like you did?

JM: "Now, if I post a verse without giving a context, or explanation as to what I think it teaches...is that intellectually acceptable?

Of course not."

So I guess your rules only apply to others, not to you. That seems to be a pattern with you so far.

 

[JM]

Haha, I gave the context you just reject it for your tradition. I get the impression you are in a rage and perhaps it would be sinful to continue to have fun at your expense.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

All heck. One more?

lol

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

All heck. One more?

lol

I finally got this picture, didn't get it at first glance

 

[JM]

I finally got this picture, didn't get it at first glance

You were preordained to get it. ;-)

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

I just wanted to share this, I am not mocking anyone, just thought the picture was funny.

 

[kangaroodort]

Haha, I gave the context you just reject it for your tradition. I get the impression you are in a rage and perhaps it would be sinful to continue to have fun at your expense.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Just looking for an honest and fruitful discussion. Too bad you are not up for it. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

All heck. One more?

lol

"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven." (Acts 26:19)

 

[JM]

Just looking for an honest and fruitful discussion. Too bad you are not up for it. God bless.

I'm just having fun. These discussion are not worth getting heated over. I'm sure I can't convince you to become a Calvinist so once I have my say I don't see the need to break a blood vessel getting angry.

Prettyboy, that was a good one.

 

[twin1954]

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 form 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.

I admit that I did read the post rather quickly and possibly missed a few things. That may be to my shame but I,like most people, tend to not read long posts thoroughly. I did, and still do, believe that I got the gist of your argument though and that is what I responded to. Any student of history knows that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers did not agree on several things. But what they did agree on was that the Scriptures were the only true source of all doctrine. And while they did start out seeking to reform the Roman church it soon became obvious that the Roman church would not bow to the Scriptures. What they brought out was not a system of doctrine necessarily but a return to the teaching of the Scriptures. What we call Calvinism is nothing more than what Paul taught very clearly as did the Lord and the rest of the Apostles. In fact it wasn't even called Calvinism until well after the death of John Calvin. I use the label only for reference and so that I do not have to go through the Doctrines of Grace every time I write something here.

Edit for additional comments:

Now that I have taken the time to read through what you wrote your purpose was very clear even with the caveat. It was just as I suspected and your use of Luther's statements were dishonest and taken out of their context. Moreover your use of the early church was without any support except one writer, whom few have heard of, who happens to seem very Pelagian in his thinking. I will have to look it up but wasn't the 3rd century about the time Augustine was destroying Pelagius' views?

 

[twin1954]

Nobody claimed that they were free to choose God without divine enabling. It is divine enabling that makes a "choice"
possible, where depravity has previously rendered such a choice impossible.

So it would be your contention that God "enables" all to hear the Gospel and believe? If that is the case then how do you get around the truth that you and the lost person beside you hear the same Gospel, are enabled to believe by God but you did and he didn't meaning that you did something that others did not do to save yourself? You obviously made the difference even with God's help.

 

[kangaroodort]

I'm just having fun. These discussion are not worth getting heated over. I'm sure I can't convince you to become a Calvinist so once I have my say I don't see the need to break a blood vessel getting angry.

Prettyboy, that was a good one.

Nobody got heated as far as I know, so I am not sure where you getting your ideas from. If you are getting angry, then you should definitely step aside. I will be happy to keep correcting your revisionist history, misrepresentations and misuse of Scripture while you are gone. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

So it would be your contention that God "enables" all to hear the Gospel and believe? If that is the case then how do you get around the truth that you and the lost person beside you hear the same Gospel, are enabled to believe by God but you did and he didn't meaning that you did something that others did not do to save yourself? You obviously made the difference even with God's help.

I don't need to get around it and I already addressed this many times, just as I demonstrated that the whole "save yourself" claim is a canard. Yet it keeps getting repeated. Feel free to go back and refresh your memory.

 

[twin1954]

I don't need to get around it and I already addressed this many times, just as I demonstrated that the whole "save yourself" claim is a canard. Yet it keeps getting repeated. Feel free to go back and refresh your memory.

Yes your whole explanation as to why you aren't saving yourself is to say that the Scriptures say that we do not save ourselves. While that is true and according to the Scriptures you have never been able to actually get around the simple conclusion that you do if your theology is correct. Until you are able to come up with a logical way that you aren't saving yourself, since you did something others didn't do, I will continue to bring it up. Sorry if it is a thorn in your side that you can't seem to get rid of.