Convince me of Arminianism

[DeaconDean]

Do the New Covenant prophecies of Jer 31 and Ez 36 apply to Israel only? Christians understand the OT through their own set of lenses as I'm sure you know.

Answer the question?

Why are you taking a verse, or verses that were expressly directed at the Hebrews, and applying them to Gentiles?

"Deuteronomy 30:19

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you
Either, literally understood, the heavens above him, and the earth on which he stood, those inanimate bodies, which are frequently called upon as witnesses to matters of moment and importance; see ( Deuteronomy 4:26 ) ( 32:1 ) ( Isaiah 1:2 ) ; or figuratively, the inhabitants of both, angels and men:

[that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing;
had plainly told them in express words what would be the consequence of obedience and disobedience to the law of God; long life, and the blessings of it in the land of Canaan, to those that obey it; death, by various means, and dreadful curses, to those that disobey it; of which see at large ( Deuteronomy 28:16-68 ) ;

therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live;
that is, prefer obedience to the law, and choose to perform that, the consequence of which is life; that they and their posterity might live comfortably and happily, quietly and safely, and constantly, even to the latest ages, in the land of Canaan."

Source

The Law that come down from Mt. Sinai, was not given to the Gentiles. Only the Hebrews.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Do the New Covenant prophecies of Jer 31 and Ez 36 apply to Israel only? Christians understand the OT through their own set of lenses as I'm sure you know.

I see in Jer. 31 where the Prophet addresses the tribes. With the promise of the Gentiles in the future.

"This chapter is connected with the former, respects the same times, and is full of prophecies and promises of spiritual blessings; of the coming of Christ; of the multiplication of his people, and the increase of their joy; of the conversion of the Gentiles; of the covenant of grace; and of the stability of the saints."

Source

Eze. 36:

"This chapter is a prophecy concerning the desolations of the land of Israel, and the causes of them; of the return of the people to it, and the fruitfulness of it; and of spiritual blessings bestowed upon them in the latter day. And first, for the comfort of the people of Israel, it is observed that their enemies that insulted them will suffer the vengeance of God's wrath, particularly the Edomites...nevertheless the Lord promises to have mercy on them, and return them to their own land, not for their sakes, but for his own name's sake, \\#Eze 36:21-24\\, then follow promises of spiritual blessings to them: as
purification from all sin by the blood of Christ; regeneration by his
Spirit and grace; and evangelical obedience as the fruit of that,"

Source

I still do not see anything where mankind is told by God "to choose good over evil".

And in reality, all you have done is help me to prove what I said earlier. There is very little in the Old Testament, that applied to Gentiles. (Thank you)

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[fhansen]

Answer the question?

Why are you taking a verse, or verses that were expressly directed at the Hebrews, and applying them to Gentiles?

"Deuteronomy 30:19

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you
Either, literally understood, the heavens above him, and the earth on which he stood, those inanimate bodies, which are frequently called upon as witnesses to matters of moment and importance; see ( Deuteronomy 4:26 ) ( 32:1 ) ( Isaiah 1:2 ) ; or figuratively, the inhabitants of both, angels and men:

[that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing;
had plainly told them in express words what would be the consequence of obedience and disobedience to the law of God; long life, and the blessings of it in the land of Canaan, to those that obey it; death, by various means, and dreadful curses, to those that disobey it; of which see at large ( Deuteronomy 28:16-68 ) ;

therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live;
that is, prefer obedience to the law, and choose to perform that, the consequence of which is life; that they and their posterity might live comfortably and happily, quietly and safely, and constantly, even to the latest ages, in the land of Canaan."

Source

The Law that come down from Mt. Sinai, was not given to the Gentiles. Only the Hebrews.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The Law is still in effect; it just needs to be fulfilled the right way, under grace, by the Spirit. Either way the answer should be obvious with my last post. The New Covenant prophecies, the fulfillment of God's plan of salvation which was initiated with His chosen people, is intended for the whole world even though addressed to Israel. All of Israel represented humankind in microcosm, until the time of fulfillment came. I'm not sure what difference it makes anyway since the NT is replete with directives to choose righteousness.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Law is still in effect; it just needs to be fulfilled the right way, under grace, by the Spirit. Either way the answer should be obvious with my last post. The New Covenant prophecies, the fulfillment of God's plan of salvation which was initiated with His chosen people, is intended for the whole world even though addressed to Israel. All of Israel represented humankind in microcosm, until the time of fulfillment came. I'm not sure what difference it makes anyway since the NT is replete with directives to choose righteousness.

You are still dancing around the question.

And no matter what, those verses in Deut 30, were still directed at the Hebrews. Not Gentiles.

So until you show definitive scriptures where we are instructed by God "to choose good over evil".

Your analysis is wrong. Period.

And it has been proven wrong by me. So to continue shows...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[bling]

As stated above, both Calvinism and Arminian agree that man has a "free-will". Where the difference lies is in the belief on Total Depravity.

Calvinism: Man is totally depraved. His will is enslaved to sin. Or as Paul put it: "ye were the servants of sin," (cf. Rom. 6:17) Prior to salvation, we sin because it is our will to sin. (cf. "then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. -Jer. 13:23)

Arminianism, on the other hand teaches that the fall only "fractured' mans will. Arminianism teaches:

"Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish."

Nearly everything in Arminanism hinges on man, not God.

It is mans free will that accepts or rejects God's grace.

Arminianism also teaches that based upon mans free will to accept or reject, is the basis of election.

Like I said, where Arminianism and Calvinism differ, separate are on God's Sovereignty and Free will.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Can we agree that not all “Calvinist” agree on how to define: “God's Sovereignty”, “free will” and “totally depraved”?

Can we also agree not all “Arminianist” agree on how to define: “God's Sovereignty”, “free will” and “totally depraved”?

You cannot speak or defend all “Calvinist” and I cannot speak or defend all “Arminianist”?

I can defend what I believe and that is what I will do:

You say: “we sin because it is our will to sin”, so since Adam and Eve sinned God had to have given them a “will to sin”? If God did not give Adam and Eve a “will to sin” and they did sin than a sinful will is not necessary to sin? Do you feel Adam and Eve prior to sinning were much better off than yourself today, because I see my situation being the much greater and can only appreciate what they went through, which has taught me a great deal?

Answer me this: Would you prefer to be in the situation where your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on your personal ability to obey God (like the Garden) or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was the result of you’re just accepting God’s grace/mercy/Love/charity/forgiveness (like you have now)?

I do believe: "Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it”, but “sinner” is not an unborn, baby, child or mentally handy capped person, but a mature adult. Man’s free will does not allow the mature adult to keep from ever sinning even for a short time, but any one sin at one time could have been avoided by man, so that makes man responsible for every sin he did.

I already explained the free will choice sinful man is making and it is “deserving” of nothing:

We know sinful man does not yet have Godly type Love, so would act selfishly (worthlessly). Yet even a selfish act can allow God shower man with blessings behind his imagination and that is similar to what happened with the Prodigal son:

The prodigal son was brought to his senses by his terrible situation he got himself into. At that moment in the pigsty he could have been macho, taken the punishment he fully deserved, paid the piper, not thought of bothering his father again, and starved to death in the pigsty. But the young son wimped out, gave up on self, and surrendered. He left for purely selfish reasons (to at least have some kind of life and survive). He is not going to bring honor to the family by returning (the older brother seems aware of that) and that is not listed as his motive. All the glory and honor goes to the father.

“Total Depravity” means you cannot do something noble, righteous, deserving of praise, with Godly type Love, or selflessly, but will have a selfish motivation, yet that would not keep a totally depraved individual from humbly accept pure sacrificial charity for selfish reasons.

 

[DeaconDean]

You say: “we sin because it is our will to sin”, so since Adam and Eve sinned God had to have given them a “will to sin”?

Note well what I say here.

In none, absolutely none of my posts, did I say "God had given them (Adam and Eve) a will to sin.

If you, as a Christian, would read your bible, you would see that actually, the first sin committed was by Eve. She lied before she took an ate the fruit.

But, that don't count as Paul outlined that in Adam "all have sinned".

So before you say I said things I didn't, please get your facts correct.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Arminianism, whether you will admit or not, is still, 500 years later, in their theology, totally dependent on man and his "free-will".

James Arminius, whose theology Arminianism (Remonstrants) is founded on, said:

"5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere."

Source

That is not a "Sovereign God"!

And to a certain extent, these beliefs are shared in Catholicism.

Everything that revolves around salvation, is dependent upon what you, the individual, does, whether it is accept and believe, or refuse to believe.

Everything I am, everything I have become, is totally dependent on God, not self.

And even worse, is the Arminian view of Christ's death on the cross.

"3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement

Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it."

Five Points of Arminianism, #3: Universal Redemption

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

We know sinful man does not yet have Godly type Love, so would act selfishly (worthlessly). Yet even a selfish act can allow God shower man with blessings behind his imagination and that is similar to what happened with the Prodigal son:

The prodigal son was brought to his senses by his terrible situation he got himself into. At that moment in the pigsty he could have been macho, taken the punishment he fully deserved, paid the piper, not thought of bothering his father again, and starved to death in the pigsty. But the young son wimped out, gave up on self, and surrendered. He left for purely selfish reasons (to at least have some kind of life and survive). He is not going to bring honor to the family by returning (the older brother seems aware of that) and that is not listed as his motive. All the glory and honor goes to the father.

Your view of that parable, and my view of that parable will clash.

In my view, that parable supports the P. in the T.U.L.I.P. outline.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I do believe: "Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it”, but “sinner” is not an unborn, baby, child or mentally handy capped person, but a mature adult. Man’s free will does not allow the mature adult to keep from ever sinning even for a short time, but any one sin at one time could have been avoided by man, so that makes man responsible for every sin he did.

Here again, just by that statement alone, you and I will/are at odds.

I believe that babies, even though they may not have actually sinned, are born with the same desire (over time), the same inclination, to sin, as Adam after the fall.

Paul said "all men". Men being a "generic" term for all of mankind. (Men, women, children, and even babies)

The Greek word used in Rom. 5:12 makes no distinction.

It includes "everything, (anything) whatsoever;".

Source

It does not distinguish between men or boys, women or girls, children or infants.

So I am sorry, but I cannot accept your P.O.V.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[fhansen]

You are still dancing around the question.

And no matter what, those verses in Deut 30, were still directed at the Hebrews. Not Gentiles.

So until you show definitive scriptures where we are instructed by God "to choose good over evil".

Your analysis is wrong. Period.

And it has been proven wrong by me. So to continue shows...

God Bless

Till all are one.

No, I showed where OT promises were ultimately intended for the Gentiles, in spite of being addressed specifically to the Israelites-so, yes, the commandment to the Hebrews to choose good over evil could’ve and should’ve ultimately been meant for all mankind.

Either way, we just need to face it-man is a morally accountable being-whether he’s saved or not, or whether he’s saved, being saved, or will be saved- or not. Heck you can’t even know with 100% certainty whether or not you’re saved to begin with- numbered among the elect- whether or not you’ll be one who perseveres. As I already explained in post #5 your doctrine of election, with no consideration of man’s will, doesn’t even make sense from the standpoint of reason alone. On top of that you have to go against the traditional teachings of the ancient churches on this matter.

If anything predestination is hardly touched upon in the bible, and, in the context of constant admonitions to believers to do this or that: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, be vigilant, strive, persevere, be holy, be perfect, refrain from sin, live in the Spirit, remain faithful, remain in Christ, be good soil, have pure hearts, etc, etc, generally with the loss of the kingdom at stake, the Arminian and Catholic teachings regarding predestination as an act of God that includes man’s choices in its determination must be held.

 

[DeaconDean]

No, I showed where OT promises were ultimately intended for the Gentiles, in spite of being addressed specifically to the Israelites-so, yes, the commandment to the Hebrews to choose good over evil could’ve and should’ve ultimately been meant for all mankind.

But it wasn't. Bottom line.

Either way, we just need to face it-man is a morally accountable being-whether he’s saved or not, or whether he’s saved, being saved, or will be saved- or not. Heck you can’t even know with 100% certainty whether or not you’re saved to begin with- numbered among the elect- whether or not you’ll be one who perseveres. As I already explained in post #5 your doctrine of election, with no consideration of man’s will, doesn’t even make sense from the standpoint of reason alone. On top of that you have to go against the traditional teachings of the ancient churches on this matter.

In the first place, the ECF's are not "authoritative for me as they are for Catholicism. My authority derives from scripture, not what some "saint" said 2000 years ago, or even 1000 years ago, or in the church.

Yes, man pre/post salvation is responsible for their sins.

As to how I know I am elect, your opinion and mine will differ. I see it as the point that I repented when presented with the Gospel.

Now, as to:

in post #5 your doctrine of election, with no consideration of man’s will, doesn’t even make sense from the standpoint of reason alone

Of course it don't make sense to you. You have the teaching of the church, and a somewhat similar view as Arminianism.

The scriptural view and my view line up perfectly.

Your own doctrine on "predestination" agrees with Arminian theology.

In Catholicism, and Arminian theology, everything is dependent on man. Even the Catholic dogma on justification depends on man.

What really is funny though, is when it suits your theology, you'll quote from scripture. Even though you have been proven wrong in all the commentary I've supplied.

Nothing has changed since 1546.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[bling]

Note well what I say here.

In none, absolutely none of my posts, did I say "God had given them (Adam and Eve) a will to sin.

So “we sin because it is our will to sin” is not always true since Adam and Eve sinned without a “will to sin”?

It was a blanket unsupported statement which Adam and Eve showed not to be true?

If you, as a Christian, would read your bible, you would see that actually, the first sin committed was by Eve. She lied before she took an ate the fruit.

We do not know for certain why Eve said: “…and you must not touch it…”, but it could be that Adam explained the command from God to her and his trying to keep her away from the tree all together made him add to the command.

Are you saying: Eve’s lie was the first “sin”, because God sets the rules and they can change over time?

But, that don't count as Paul outlined that in Adam "all have sinned".

So before you say I said things I didn't, please get your facts correct.

Does that have to mean an unborn child is guilty of sin?

We can agree all mature adults sin, but are they sinners before they sin themselves?

Can we blame Adam for being sinners?

 

[bling]

Your view of that parable, and my view of that parable will clash.

In my view, that parable supports the P. in the T.U.L.I.P. outline.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I am not interpreting the parable at all, but using a familiar story for both of us and for others to relate as an example of how you can change and accept God's charity without "doing" something worthy of something. Those who turn to God are not signing up to be a soldier for Christ (something very noble), but are just humbly willing to accept pure charity they are totally unworthy of having.

 

[bling]

Here again, just by that statement alone, you and I will/are at odds.

I believe that babies, even though they may not have actually sinned, are born with the same desire (over time), the same inclination, to sin, as Adam after the fall.

Paul said "all men". Men being a "generic" term for all of mankind. (Men, women, children, and even babies)

The Greek word used in Rom. 5:12 makes no distinction.

It includes "everything, (anything) whatsoever;".

Source

It does not distinguish between men or boys, women or girls, children or infants.

So I am sorry, but I cannot accept your P.O.V.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dictionaries do not help us here, because we do not know enough in the way of the context of the language (especially one specific word) at this time and how the people would have understood it at that time. The whole New Testament is written to people who could make choices, because choices are being asked of the reader to make, so where are small and babies addressed other than in what you consider to be an all inclusive "all men" and what is asked of "all men" which a baby can choose to do?

What sin did a new born baby do because it says "all sinned"?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Not all Calvinists have all things right and not all Arminians have all things right.

But - if we place Calvinism to the right and Arminianism to the left - the vast majority of good and thorough systematic theologies ever written come down somewhere right of center.

There's a reason for that. If we reject limited atonement (which John Calvin didn't believe in) and nuance all of the other points of T.U.L.I.P. so they are not misunderstood or misrepresented - what the scriptures teach in the realm of soteriology is generally "Reformed".

I.e. - God is sovereign and has predestined everything which happens in His creation.

God has given men free will and their free will choices are the means of His bringing to past many of the things He has predestined to occur.

God's sovereign plan and men's freedom of will do not contradict but rather compliment each other.

Finding themselves justly under the curse of God - fallen men are affected to the extent that they can not do anything pertaining to justification before God but exercise saving faith in what God Himself has done.

No man will or indeed can exercise saving faith unless they are given to and particularly drawn by the Father to the Son of God.

All those so given to the Son will come to the Son as the Holy Spirit enables in time.

Those so given and drawn to the Son by the Father will never again come into condemnation before the Father because they are kept by the Son of God and His Spirit unto the day of salvation.

That's Reformed theology.

It isn't spiritual rocket science and any theologian worthy of the name has come to the same conclusions.

One can debate opinions about the supposed fairness of God if he is so inclined. But no one honestly approaching the scriptures can or will deny these great Reformed (right of center) truths.

 

[fhansen]

But it wasn't. Bottom line.

So on the same basis that means you also deny that the prophecies of Jer 31 pertain to Gentiles?

In the first place, the ECF's are not "authoritative for me as they are for Catholicism. My authority derives from scripture, not what some "saint" said 2000 years ago, or even 1000 years ago, or in the church.

Well, it's not first of all just an ECF issue. It has to do with the continuous teachings of the Church, east and west.

Yes, man pre/post salvation is responsible for their sins.

And that responsibility and the culpability it necessarily involves would be impossible unless man is free to say "no" to his command-giver and Savior, and may well do so.

In Catholicism, and Arminian theology, everything is dependent on man. Even the Catholic dogma on justification depends on man.

Not at all. Man's role is only that he can refuse the life preserver given by his Savior, without which he surely drowns.

What really is funny though, is when it suits your theology, you'll quote from scripture. Even though you have been proven wrong in all the commentary I've supplied.

You've haven't proven anyone wrong, or yourself right; IMO you're virtually in a state of denial, in fact. And of course I quote Scripture-why wouldn't I? The RCC is consistent with Scripture, and so quotes it regularly in support of her positions since her members wrote the New Testament; Scripture is actually part of her Tradition.

Nothing has changed since 1546.

Nothing has changed for 2 millenia.

 

[DeaconDean]

So on the same basis that means you also deny that the prophecies of Jer 31 pertain to Gentiles?

Well, it's not first of all just an ECF issue. It has to do with the continuous teachings of the Church, east and west.

And that responsibility and the culpability it necessarily involves would be impossible unless man is free to say "no" to his command-giver and Savior, and may well do so.

Not at all. Man's role is only that he can refuse the life preserver given by his Savior, without which he surely drowns.

You've haven't proven anyone wrong, or yourself right; IMO you're virtually in a state of denial, in fact. And of course I quote Scripture-why wouldn't I? The RCC is consistent with Scripture, and so quotes it regularly in support of her positions since her members wrote the New Testament; Scripture is actually part of her Tradition.

Nothing has changed for 2 millenia.

That's right.

You dogmatically follow the church.

I follow the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

So “we sin because it is our will to sin” is not always true since Adam and Eve sinned without a “will to sin”?

It was a blanket unsupported statement which Adam and Eve showed not to be true?

Why must you try to twist everything?

You evidently have not studied Hamartiology.

We do not know for certain why Eve said: “…and you must not touch it…”, but it could be that Adam explained the command from God to her and his trying to keep her away from the tree all together made him add to the command.

Are you saying: Eve’s lie was the first “sin”, because God sets the rules and they can change over time?

Eve did "sin" before Adam, but that is not the point. Sin has passed down to man, through Adam.

I don't know why either, but I do know I can rely, and trust in the scriptures. and scriptures show us nowhere where Adam was told that, and then passed that on to Eve.

Does that have to mean an unborn child is guilty of sin?

We can agree all mature adults sin, but are they sinners before they sin themselves?

Can we blame Adam for being sinners?

Every man woman and child ever born has the "sin nature". Even newborns. What separates us from them is that while they have the same sin nature we do, if they die not long after birth, they have actually not committed any sins.

That is where they separate from us.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I am not interpreting the parable at all, but using a familiar story for both of us and for others to relate as an example of how you can change and accept God's charity without "doing" something worthy of something.

Sure you were.

Otherwise you wouldn't have told me what you did.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dictionaries do not help us here, because we do not know enough in the way of the context of the language (especially one specific word) at this time and how the people would have understood it at that time. The whole New Testament is written to people who could make choices, because choices are being asked of the reader to make, so where are small and babies addressed other than in what you consider to be an all inclusive "all men" and what is asked of "all men" which a baby can choose to do?

What sin did a new born baby do because it says "all sinned"?

See, here again, that is the difference between you and I.

It's not enough to just read the scriptures, I need to know several things.

Looking at the original language of the scriptures does help more than you will ever know.

That is why I included the Greek definition of the word.

And it does mean everybody and/or everything of a certain kind.

And one other thing. You said:

"The whole New Testament is written to people who could make choices, because choices are being asked of the reader to make, so where are small and babies addressed other than in what you consider to be an all inclusive "all men" and what is asked of "all men" which a baby can choose to do?"

Fact: 99% of everything in the New Testament, with the exception of the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation, were written to believers, Christians, people who had already been saved.

God Bless

Till all are one.