Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[twin1954]

Straw Man...

How, may I ask, is it a straw man?

 

[Job8]

It is obvious that they didn't tell him to save himself by exercising his free will.

What is obvious is that they told him to BELIEVE and that is exactly what he did. He had to exercise HIS FAITH so whether you want to accept that fact and apply free will to it or not does not matter. And at the bottom of the passage it says that he BELIEVED. No Calvinistic hocus pocus. He simply believed and was baptized. And that is what the Gospel is about.

1. Every human being can receive the gift of eternal life.

2. Therefore every human being can simply believe and be saved. Proof? Mark 16:15,16 and a host of other Scriptures.

 

[Leevo]

Or, He always knew, therefore he did not learn.

A better way to phrase it!

 

[Thursday]

Hi my Arminian friends! I was just wondering, why are you an Arminian? Have you considered the historic position of Bible believing Christians and perhaps, considered that your position is a form of humanism? Was the Arminianism you profess a tradition like Dispensationalism and the PreTrib Rapture?

Thanks,

jm

I'm a Catholic who believes that a man reaps what he sows.

We can't do it without God's grace, but we still must choose.

God gives us sufficient grace. We decide what to do with it.

 

[Leevo]

How, may I ask, is it a straw man?

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent"

Arminians do not put forth the idea that man is his own savior, saying so is a straw man argument.

 

[JM]

I'm a Catholic who believes that a man reaps what he sows.

We can't do it without God's grace, but we still must choose.

God gives us sufficient grace. We decide what to do with it.

Hi Thursday. That's a very common view held by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Arminians. What do all three groups have in common? They all hold tradition in high regard but high regard for tradition doesn't equal a high biblical literacy.

Also, I will say Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy make sense as a "system." Arminianism is essentially Romanism striped of all its means of grace the cooperative systems that employ sacraments. RC's and EO's get high marks in my book for consistency.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Job8]

RC's and EO's get high marks in my book for consistency.

And Calvinists get even higher marks for being consistently in error.

 

[twin1954]

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent"

Arminians do not put forth the idea that man is his own savior, saying so is a straw man argument.

I know what a straw man argument is and while you may claim that you do not think that you put forth an argument that man saves himself it is the simple conclusion to your theology. It isn't a straw man but a logical conclusion.

Your theology:
Premise 1: God loves all men alike and desires to save all men.
Premise 2: The Father sent the Son to die for the sin of all men and make salvation possible.
Premise 3: The Son shed His precious blood to save all mankind if they will believe.
Premise 4: Man has free will to accept the death of Christ for his sin or to reject the death of Christ for his sin.
Premise 5: Man, after hearing the Gospel, decides his own fate as to eternal life or eternal damnation.

Therefore man is the deciding factor in whether he is saved or lost and the simple conclusion is that man is his own savior.

Is that a simple enough syllogism for you? See it isn't a straw man but a conclusion to your theology.

 

[twin1954]

What is obvious is that they told him to BELIEVE and that is exactly what he did. He had to exercise HIS FAITH so whether you want to accept that fact and apply free will to it or not does not matter. And at the bottom of the passage it says that he BELIEVED. No Calvinistic hocus pocus. He simply believed and was baptized. And that is what the Gospel is about.

1. Every human being can receive the gift of eternal life.

2. Therefore every human being can simply believe and be saved. Proof? Mark 16:15,16 and a host of other Scriptures.

Your nonsense is becoming tiresome. You don't actually put forth an argument you just make accusations without any actual proof. If you believe that Calvinists are in error then show us exactly how we are rather than just make false accusations and point to proof texts. I can just as easily match you Scripture for Scripture if I wanted to take the time to continue this nonsense. Actually make an intelligent argument or leave it alone.

But to answer this post, yes they told him to believe because that is the answer to his question. The preaching of the Gospel of the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus calls on all men to believe. What we do not do is tell sinners that belief is in their own power but by the grace of God. The Gospel isn't that Christ made it possible for them to be saved if they believe but that Christ has saved and the proof that they are saved is that they believe. We tell sinners the truth about God and the truth about themselves. You do not.

 

[JM]

And Calvinists get even higher marks for being consistently in error.

 

[98cwitr]

Thats just awful to do to that poor baby!

 

[kangaroodort]

The way of escape is always there. What makes the difference is whether or not God leads us down that path or into temptation. Grace and corruption reside together in the believer's heart. God will use temptation to reveal this to us. In Abraham's case, God manifested the grace of faith that was in his heart. Genesis 22:1 In King Hezekiah's case, God manifested the sin of corruption residing in his heart. The way of escape was open to both, but only Abraham escaped through it.

Sorry, but that doesn't jive with Paul's language. The reason a way of escape is provided is so that the one being tempted can bear up under it, not so their hearts can be revealed. Can temptations do that? Absolutely. But that is not what Paul is talking about, and in the context of the entire chapter that is even more plain. The promise and faithfulness of God creates a legitimate option for all believers, enabling them to resist temptation, and the fact that many still fall to temptation demonstrates the reality of libertarian free will.

 

[kangaroodort]

If that is the cased then He didn't choose based on His foreknowledge did He? If He chose, as you say, because He always knew then how is it that He saw who would believe according to His foreknowledge?

Actually, that is not my view, and I never claimed that God chooses based on foreknowledge. But even in that view God's choice being based on what free will creatures will do (though really it is not so much a choice based on what they will do but based on their faith union with Christ, the elect One) does not in anyway imply that such knowledge was acquired at some point (in the sense of learning). This isn't even really much of a debate when it comes to this topic because it is such an obvious non sequitur.

 

[kangaroodort]

You did something that others did not which makes the whole difference in whether you are saved or not and it doesn't matter whether God always knew that you would or saw by foresight that you would. That makes your destiny to be by your will not by God's grace.

Another major non sequitur, and one that is been pointed out many times. Does your choice to trust or not make the difference regarding whether or not God will save you? Yes, but it is still God who does the saving, not you. And there is no Biblical or logical reason to think that just because God requires us to trust in Him to receive salvation, it is still not an act of grace for God to save us? Why? For the same reason that has been repeatedly pointed out in these two threads: Faith receives a free and unearned gift from the hand of God, as Paul states,

"Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked [receives the gift of justification through faith, a gift that could never be earned or merited because we are "wicked"], his faith is credited as righteousness."

By trusting in God to do for us what we could never do for ourselves (justify and save us), we receive forgiveness and are made righteous in Him (Rom. 4:6-8). Trusting God to justify us doesn't earn or merit justification, nor does it mean we justify ourselves. That is the whole point of trusting in Him. If we could do it, we wouldn't need to rely on Him to do it for us. Faith is relying on God to save us, and for that reason excludes boasting since we cannot boast in something we need to entirely rely on God for, and that is why faith establishes it as by grace (Rom. 3:25-28; 4:16). It's really not that complicated.

 

[kangaroodort]

You did something that others did not which makes the whole difference in whether you are saved or not and it doesn't matter whether God always knew that you would or saw by foresight that you would. That makes your destiny to be by your will not by God's grace.

I should also point out again that in Calvinism faith supposedly excludes boasting because God irresistibly causes it in us. But then why couldn't works exclude boasting the same way? God could have just as easily made works the condition for receiving salvation and made it so that we could not boast in it by causing it irresistibly, just as He supposedly irresistibly causes faith. And in traditional Calvinism all things are the result of an irresistible eternal decree anyway. That includes both our faith and works. So the Biblical distinction between faith and works loses meaning in Calvinism and the principle of faith which excludes boasting becomes nonsense in a Calvinist framework. Paul makes it clear that it is the "law" or "principle" of faith that excludes boasting. In other words, faith by it's very nature excludes boasting since it is simple trust in God to save us and receives a free and unmerited gift from the hand of God (which is why it is "of grace", cf. Rom. 4:16; 5:1, 2). So in Armnianism, it makes perfect sense why the "law" of faith excludes boasting while works would promote boasting, but not in Calvinism. And if you are still struggling to see why this is the case, maybe Calvinist John Piper can be of some assistance: http://evangelicalarminians.org/john-piper-is-faith-meritorious/

 

[Leevo]

I know what a straw man argument is and while you may claim that you do not think that you put forth an argument that man saves himself it is the simple conclusion to your theology. It isn't a straw man but a logical conclusion.

Your theology:
Premise 1: God loves all men alike and desires to save all men.
Premise 2: The Father sent the Son to die for the sin of all men and make salvation possible.
Premise 3: The Son shed His precious blood to save all mankind if they will believe.
Premise 4: Man has free will to accept the death of Christ for his sin or to reject the death of Christ for his sin.
Premise 5: Man, after hearing the Gospel, decides his own fate as to eternal life or eternal damnation.

Therefore man is the deciding factor in whether he is saved or lost and the simple conclusion is that man is his own savior.

Is that a simple enough syllogism for you? See it isn't a straw man but a conclusion to your theology.

This argument has been refuted time and again by kangaroodort and has been shown to be false...

 

[Job8]

Premise 5: Man, after hearing the Gospel, decides his own fate as to eternal life or eternal damnation.

WHO LOOKED? WHO SAVED?

Sinners look to the Saviour. They do not save themselves.

 

[royal priest]

Sorry, but that doesn't jive with Paul's language. The reason a way of escape is provided is so that the one being tempted can bear up under it, not so their hearts can be revealed. Can temptations do that? Absolutely. But that is not what Paul is talking about, and in the context of the entire chapter that is even more plain. The promise and faithfulness of God creates a legitimate option for all believers, enabling them to resist temptation, and the fact that many still fall to temptation demonstrates the reality of libertarian free will.

Correct. God enables men to resist temptation. I can rest satisfied that you give God the glory for at least that much.

 

[kangaroodort]

Correct. God enables men to resist temptation. I can rest satisfied that you give God the glory for at least that much.

So if we do not resist, even though God enables us to resist, that means we have libertarian free will. We had the God given ability to do right, but chose to do wrong.

 

[kangaroodort]

But to answer this post, yes they told him to believe because that is the answer to his question. The preaching of the Gospel of the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus calls on all men to believe. What we do not do is tell sinners that belief is in their own power but by the grace of God.

Arminians agree that faith is not in our own power, but by the grace of God. That is what prevenient enabling grace is all about. But that does not mean that such grace works in an irresistible manner so that faith is the inevitable guaranteed result. Grace does not need to be irresistible to be grace. That is a contrived Calvinist claim.

But you have said that we can do nothing to receive salvation and if we do that means that we save ourselves (which has been shown to be false and based on absurdities). The Bible has no problem with the idea that faith is indeed something we must do in order to receive salvation (as Paul's response to the jailer's question demonstrates). We see the same thing in Acts 2:37-28,

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The Spirit and the word had worked on their hearts to see that they needed to respond to the message, but it is still up to them to respond. They still needed to do something. In fact, the Biblical language doesn't even shy away form the idea that we are responsible to receive this salvation and in doing so, in a loose sense, we save ourselves (by clinging to the only One who can save us),

"With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.' (Acts 2:40)

Some translations have "be saved", but the implication is the same. Now does this mean that they need to save themselves in the strict sense? No. It is just describing our personal responsibility to rely on Christ to save us. But that does not change the fact that Jesus is the one who is saving us. The need to rely on Christ to save us is proof that only Christ can save us. If we could save ourselves we would not need to rely on Him. But we are still responsible to rely on Him and if we do not, He will not save us as God has sovereignly determined to save only those who will trust in His Son. That was God's decision, not ours. He dictates the terms for receiving salvation, not us. And He has the sovereign freedom and right to make the reception of salvation conditioned on trusting in and relying on His Son, and this is the perfect condition which excludes all boasting because in trusting Christ to save us, we give all the glory and credit to Him for salvation. God is so wise.

And even in Calvinism, faith is something we "do" unless you believe that God does the believing for us (which Calvinists typically deny). So the whole "if you do something to receive salvation it means you save yourself" argument is a ruse.

The Gospel isn't that Christ made it possible for them to be saved if they believe but that Christ has saved and the proof that they are saved is that they believe.

The consistent Biblical testimony is that one must believe to be saved and must believe to receive eternal life and must believe to be justified and must believe to transition from spiritual death into spiritual life and must believe to be joined to Christ in faith and must believe to receive the Spirit of life and adoption. What it does not say is that you might be saved already and if you believe it only proves that you were already saved. So you have given us a good example here of how Calvinism essentially turns the whole of Biblical revelation on its head in order to maintain the dictates of its theological systematic (which we might just as well call "traditions" since that seems to be a favorite Calvinist descriptor).