Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[dogs4thewin]

Because free will makes sense. God does not force you to accept Him, and in fact in most cases particularly in the west people do not accept the gospel upon first hearing it. Also, God expects us to believe in a certain way, that is be holy, yet people can claim to be Christian and even can be a strong witness and decide that they will sin and refuse to change. In other words while Calvinists do hold that Christians still sin it only makes sense that if someone keeps sinning without caring that they have left God.

 

[mikedsjr]

It didn't seem to me he was associating Arminians with Pelagians, etc., but saying that many who think they are Arminian are not truly Arminian, but actually Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. I could be wrong, but I think you might be misunderstanding him here.

You are correct. That is what I was saying. I'm trying my best to weed out what the issues are. Maybe some of my issues are not with Arminians, but those who disagree with Calvinism but aren't Arminian either. They just don't fight against Arminianism.

 

[twin1954]

Because free will makes sense. God does not force you to accept Him, and in fact in most cases particularly in the west people do not accept the gospel upon first hearing it. Also, God expects us to believe in a certain way, that is be holy, yet people can claim to be Christian and even can be a strong witness and decide that they will sin and refuse to change. In other words while Calvinists do hold that Christians still sin it only makes sense that if someone keeps sinning without caring that they have left God.

There is a difference between forcing against their will, which is a straw man, and making them willing. God makes no one a believer against their will He makes them willing. I believe you have been told this more than once yet you persist in arguing this straw man. Why?

There are those who hear the Gospel preached, some even for many years that I know personally, yet at the appointed time they are given a willing heart and faith in Christ through the preaching of the Gospel. They will all tell you that it had nothing to do with them but that their eyes were opened to see their need for Christ and they heard in their heart for the first time. The Gospel had never reached their heart before but now the same Gospel that they had sat and listened to for years was suddenly good news to them because they now knew that they needed a Savior.

Those who claim to be believers yet sin without it causing them pain in their hearts were never true believers. They may claim that they were but they were not.

 

[kangaroodort]

You are correct. That is what I was saying. I'm trying my best to weed out what the issues are. Maybe some of my issues are not with Arminians, but those who disagree with Calvinism but aren't Arminian either. They just don't fight against Arminianism.

BTW, Mike. I think you said you are Lutheran in your Theology, right? Luther was a true Augustinian in my opinion, whereas Calvin took Augustine's Theology to extremes (or one might say to its logical conclusion). So as one who holds to Lutheran Theology, what do you think of JM's earlier claim (which he has yet to retract) that Luther and all the Reformers were Calvinists?

 

[dogs4thewin]

There is a difference between forcing against their will, which is a straw man, and making them willing. God makes no one a believer against their will He makes them willing. I believe you have been told this more than once yet you persist in arguing this straw man. Why?

There are those who hear the Gospel preached, some even for many years that I know personally, yet at the appointed time they are given a willing heart and faith in Christ through the preaching of the Gospel. They will all tell you that it had nothing to do with them but that their eyes were opened to see their need for Christ and they heard in their heart for the first time. The Gospel had never reached their heart before but now the same Gospel that they had sat and listened to for years was suddenly good news to them because they now knew that they needed a Savior.

Those who claim to be believers yet sin without it causing them pain in their hearts were never true believers. They may claim that they were but they were not.

makes them willing how do you make someone want something?

 

[twin1954]

makes them willing how do you make someone want something?

My wife made me willing to love her the first time I saw her. She was so appealing to me I knew that I had to have her. That is what the Lord does to His people. He makes us willing by showing us our desperate need of Him and then the beauty of His salvation. He makes us willing by giving us a new heart to know our need and to see the wonder of the truth of the Gospel as it is in Christ.

 

[kangaroodort]

My wife made me willing to love her the first time I saw her. She was so appealing to me I knew that I had to have her. That is what the Lord does to His people. He makes us willing by showing us our desperate need of Him and then the beauty of His salvation. He makes us willing by giving us a new heart to know our need and to see the wonder of the truth of the Gospel as it is in Christ.

But prior to that we were God haters who wanted nothing to do with God, so the analogy fails. And we didn't want a "new heart" prior to God giving us one (in Calvinism, since in my view the new heart is clearly and Biblically the result of faith, and not the cause). It would be like someone using a mind control device in someone who hated broccoli and controlling the mind in such a way that it suddenly found broccoli irresistibly attractive. Would we say that the person then freely chose to love broccoli? Of course not. And this idea that God freely "makes us" willing creates some interesting problems with regards to sanctification as well: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...lvinist-accounting-of-monergistic-conversion/

 

[kangaroodort]

makes them willing how do you make someone want something?

You can't "make them" if they are truly free. But you can persuade them. But "persuading" assumes freedom, while "making" someone do something typically assumes the absence of freedom.

 

[twin1954]

But prior to that we were God haters who wanted nothing to do with God, so the analogy fails. And we didn't want a "new heart" prior to God giving us one (in Calvinism, since in my view the new heart is clearly and Biblically the result of faith, and not the cause). It would be like someone using a mind control device in someone who hated broccoli and controlling the mind in such a way that it suddenly found broccoli irresistibly attractive. Would we say that the person then freely chose to love broccoli? Of course not.

That is why Christ said that you must be born again in order to even see the kingdom of God. The new nature must come before faith. God making us willing is not mind control in the sense that you describe it but giving us a new nature and a new mind. Of course the analogy isn't perfect but it does illustrate the fact that we can be made to love without it being against our will. Moreover it doesn't have to be "freely given" in order to be true love. A slave can love his master and his family enough to give his life to him as illustrated in the boring of the ear in the Old Testament. Of course that is also an illustration of Christ loving His Father and serving Him as one who has had his ear bored. Love is love no matter how it comes about. A child loves its parents because they love him enough to spank him.

And this idea that God freely "makes us" willing creates some interesting problems with regards to sanctification as well: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...lvinist-accounting-of-monergistic-conversion/

Not when you actually understand what sanctification is Biblically. See the thread on sanctification here in the Baptist forum. And I am not interested in reading articles. If you want folks to read something that you wrote post it here so that you can defend it.

 

[OzSpen]

I am not sure what you mean by that. I think in this reply I interact with the entirety of the post, so everything should be there. But if that is not the case, just scroll back a bit and you should find the post I am responding to. God bless.

Choose the 'Reply' icon in the bottom right corner and it automatically back quotes for you so that I know that person to whom you are replying. As you note here, I'm replying to kangaroodort.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It didn't seem to me he was associating Arminians with Pelagians, etc., but saying that many who think they are Arminian are not truly Arminian, but actually Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. I could be wrong, but I think you might be misunderstanding him here.

Roger E Olson's book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006) shows that Arminians are not semi-Pelagians or Pelagians. Here's a link to Kevin G Smith's review of that book.

Thanks kangaroo for alerting me to the fact that I may have misunderstood what Mike wrote. He wrote:

I think the real problem is understanding what is true Arminian in modern churches and what is really semi-pelegianism & pelegianism by those who say they are Arminian. There is no way a good Arminian church twists Scripture like it gets twisted nowadays.

I think I have misunderstood Mike. For that I apologise, to you Mike. I think Mike is showing that Semi-Pelagian and Pelagian belief systems (that twist Scripture) are not true Arminians. I agree.

Oz

 

[mikedsjr]

BTW, Mike. I think you said you are Lutheran in your Theology, right? Luther was a true Augustinian in my opinion, whereas Calvin took Augustine's Theology to extremes (or one might say to its logical conclusion). So as one who holds to Lutheran Theology, what do you think of JM's earlier claim (which he has yet to retract) that Luther and all the Reformers were Calvinists?

I'm not sure of what his claim was. By your statement, I would say there is similarities between Calvinism and Lutheran theology. But it's only so deep as total depravity and a agreement there is no free will, if I may be simplistic. From there it seems to splinter within the confines of historically Christianity, but not as much as it does with Arminianism.
On face value, Lutheran church service has more in common with RC than typical Protestant church, and I've known some who would rather attend a RC Mass than an evangelical service if there isn't a Lutheran church nearby. So there is quite abut of difference between Calvinism and Lutheran theology when you flesh them out.

 

[kangaroodort]

Not when you actually understand what sanctification is Biblically. See the thread on sanctification here in the Baptist forum. And I am not interested in reading articles. If you want folks to read something that you wrote post it here so that you can defend it.

Right, so I should read the entire thread you recommend on sanctification so I can get a proper Baptist understanding of it like you, but you can't be bothered to go off site and read posts or articles I wrote. And of course, I can defend those things here just as well even if one has to go through the terrible effort of clicking a link and leaving the site for a few minutes to read the material. There is no rule that says you can't cut and paste from the article to challenge me with what I wrote here, or even paste the whole post or article here. And if I posted an entire article here, why should I think you would not just dismiss it as just too much to read (with a few insults thrown in for good measure), as you did earlier when I took the time to give a careful and detailed response to your misrepresentations of what I believe. Remember that? Here was your very insightful and helpful "interaction",

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance confuse them with lengthy [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. I don't have the time to respond properly to your long and tedious posts.

For this one let me say that it is utter nonsense and anyone who has read my post to which you are responding knows it. Comparing Calvinists to the Pharisee is blatant and utterly absurd bombastic claptrap intended to stir the pot and make the discussion about something which is false. It is a red herring and you know it.

And this was followed up by another very humble, loving and Christlike response from JM,

I'm convinced that it is nothing more than pride. Everyone [sic.?] is dumber than an Arminian who claims total libertarian freewill. Proof texting, lack of understanding, lack of nuance are all attempts to create a smoke screen.

And yet, I am supposed to think that if I paste a detailed article here instead of leaving a link, it will be given a fair hearing and will be fairly "interacted" with. Really?

For those who are not afraid to click a post and follow it to read materiel off site, I have addressed the Calvinist prooftexting of John 3 and Ezekiel's "new heart" at my site (along with just about every other significant Calvinist prooftext),

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/ezekiel-3626-27/

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...hat-regeneration-precedes-faith-in-john-33-6/

The new nature must come before faith. God making us willing is not mind control in the sense that you describe it but giving us a new nature and a new mind. Of course the analogy isn't perfect but it does illustrate the fact that we can be made to love without it being against our will.

No it doesn't. If we were God haters that wanted nothing to do with Christ prior to His irresistible act of "giving us a new heart" that "makes us willing", then it was certainly "against our will" because our will was to hate and reject God prior to His irresistible working in us. It would be like a man meeting a girl at a bar and the girl doesn't like him and wants nothing to do with him. In fact, she finds him repulsive. So the man slips a pill in her drink that removes her inhibitions and causes her to begin to find him attractive, even to the point of "making her willing" to sleep with him. Now if this incident was brought before the court, would the court say that the man is not liable for violating the woman against her will, since the pill he put in her drink "made her willing"? Of course not. Nobody would say that she freely chose to be with the man under such circumstances, and no one would say that her will was not violated. As distasteful as this illustration might be, it illustrates the exact same principle behind your claims that while God "makes us willing" this making us willing by "giving us a new heart" is not a violation of the person's will. Instead of dropping a pill into our drink, God drops a "new heart" into our God hating chest. The only difference would be that in your view of how God works, the "effects" of the "drug" would never wear off. But that doesn't change the fact that a person's will has been obviously violated in the process.

It really is pretty simple. If God's working faith into us is not resistible, but irresistible, then it certainly violates freedom and the will. That is so obvious, it shouldn't even need to be pointed out. If you want to say that God irresistibly brings sinners to faith and love and devotion to Him (by irresistibly removing their "hate God heart" and putting in a "love God heart") because you think the Bible teaches that, then fine. But trying to then claim that God does this in such a way that we freely come to him in such a way that our wills are not violated is clearly incoherent. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

 

[kangaroodort]

I'm not sure of what his claim was.

Here is what he wrote in the "Calvinists, Why Are You Calvinists?" thread: "The free will Arminian tradition is very similar to Roman Catholicism. In fact, Arminius like Philipp Melanchthon before him, softened the Protestant doctrine moving Lutherianism toward the Roman church. When I say Protestant I refer to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin. All there Reformers held to what is now called “Calvinism.”

By your statement, I would say there is similarities between Calvinism and Lutheran theology. But it's only so deep as total depravity and a agreement there is no free will, if I may be simplistic. From there it seems to splinter within the confines of historically Christianity, but not as much as it does with Arminianism.
On face value, Lutheran church service has more in common with RC than typical Protestant church, and I've known some who would rather attend a RC Mass than an evangelical service if there isn't a Lutheran church nearby. So there is quite abut of difference between Calvinism and Lutheran theology when you flesh them out.

Thanks for the response. In my understanding, Luther would not say that we have "no free will" at all, just in the initial process of conversion. But Luther saw freedom from that point on, which is why he saw sanctification as more synergistic and affirmed those who had been irresistibly brought to faith could yet fall away and perish. He did not hold to inevitable perseverance as Calvin did. And Luther held to an unlimited provisional atonement as well. So to claim that Luther was a Calvinist is about as false as you can get, unless you can be a Calvinist and reject both limited atonement (which you can if you are a 4 pointer, though it seems JM would not see them as true Calvinist) and inevitable perseverance. So Luther held to TU and I (in conversion only), but rejected LP. If that counts as "Calvinism" that is news to me.

 

[kangaroodort]

Choose the 'Reply' icon in the bottom right corner and it automatically back quotes for you so that I know that person to whom you are replying. As you note here, I'm replying to kangaroodort.

Oz

I did that with most of my posts. For some, I just cut and paste quotes. Sorry, but I don't have time now to go back and change that for the ones I did not back quote. As I said, if you see a reply in the post from me, you probably wouldn't need to scroll back long to see the full post I am responding to. Sorry for the inconvenience. God bless.

 

[mikedsjr]

Thanks for the response. In my understanding, Luther would not say that we have "no free will" at all, just in the initial process of conversion. But Luther saw freedom from that point on, which is why he saw sanctification as more synergistic and affirmed those who had been irresistibly brought to faith could yet fall away and perish. He did not hold to inevitable perseverance as Calvin did. And Luther held to an unlimited provisional atonement as well. So to claim that Luther was a Calvinist is about as false as you can get, unless you can be a Calvinist and reject both limited atonement (which you can if you are a 4 pointer, though it seems JM would not see them as true Calvinist) and inevitable perseverance. So Luther held to TU and I (in conversion only), but rejected LP. If that counts as "Calvinism" that is news to me.

That's a decent assessment of Lutheran Theology. It's still even broader than this, whereas Calvinism can't seem to get passed predestination. I very much appreciate the Lutheran view of law & gospel and everything outside this is adiaphora. Evangelicalism has issues with this. And if Calvinist were honest, they do too. Eventually the question is asked how one knows they are saved and it returns to the fruit of their salvation. Not so with Lutheran theology.

 

[kangaroodort]

kangaroodort,

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of your posts and the posts to which you reply. Would you be so kind as to back quote at the beginning of each of your posts so I know where your response is directed.

For example, in your response here, you have not back quoted to link to the person to whom you are replying.

I'm impressed with your understanding of Arminianism, its theology and history, and those who misrepresent its beliefs.

I look forward to your clarification of this matter by back quoting every post in which you refer to another's post.

Oz

I just went back and checked, and as far as I can tell, I did back quote this particular post when I responded to it. Here is the post with the back quoted section at the top: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/arminians-why-are-you-arminian.7926633/page-12#post-69159776

And here is a direct link that comes up when you click the back quote: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/arminians-why-are-you-arminian.7926633/page-12#post-69157215

Hope that helps.

And here is the continuation of that response that was deemed "long and tedious...utter nonsense...blatant and utterly absurd bombastic claptrap intended to stir the pot and make the discussion about something which is false....a red herring" by twin1954 and the result of "pride...Proof texting, lack of understanding, lack of nuance [which] are all attempts to create a smoke screen" by JM: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/arminians-why-are-you-arminian.7926633/page-12#post-69164561

 

[kangaroodort]

I do understand what the Arminian believes and why. I have read Arminius and Wesley and others from your camp. Not only that but I have had many discussions with Arminian pastors and preachers. You haven't brought anything which I haven't seen or heard before. And the problem still remains that you can't get around Arminian theology has man saving himself by his decision to believe.

And yet, you wrongly said in the other thread that prevenient grace was a Wesleyan concept and not a feature of Classical Arminianism: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-you-calvinist.7926413/page-11#post-69113439

So your understanding of what Arminians and Wesleyans believe still needs a little work.

 

[Obliqueness]

I had to chime in.

The act of creation is a choosing based on foreknowledge. God always knew that creating earth at a certain time would result in so many people being saved, so many people being lost. By choosing to create knowing the outcome, the outcome was chosen. The saved are chosen before time by the very act of creation. This is the macro level.

On a micro level, believe and be baptised. Flee from the wrath to come to take hold of the hope offered.

All believers have to come to terms with the fact that the two groups are chosen by creation, according to foreknowledge. Seems the Calvinist is harsh about it, but the Arminian is wrong about free will. If you go back to the same situation with all the same parameters, you will do the same thing every time. Destiny is set, as we aren't creating it as we go through life. It has already happened, God saw it already.

I am torn between the two camps and believe the bible teaches a kind of combination of the two.

 

[Dave-W]

Because God commands us to choose many things.
Calvinism's denial of free will flies in the face of that.