Eternal Security

[DD2008]

Unless you understand the Arminian stance on things you can't disagree with the stance if you're unfamiliar with it. You might have read the Bible, but the Bible doesn't explicitly say, "Calvinism is right, Arminianism is wrong." Thus a rightful understanding of Calvinism and Arminianism is necessary before you can state that one is biblically wrong. Basing on various posts in here, you seem to think Arminianism teaches free will in which man saves himself, which is actually teachings of a heretic named Pelagius, not Arminius. If you read any bit of Arminius teachings you'd realize Arminius was adamant on the sovereignty of God, the bondage of human will, giving glory to God, and a theology of which is thoroughly grace centered.

You can't claim you know something is wrong without understanding what it is you are claiming is wrong. I can just as easily say, "I know Calvinism is wrong because I've read the Bible." But unless my understanding of Calvinism teachings are accurate, I can't but claim, "I don't know if Calvinism is wrong," because though I've read the Bible, if I don't understand Calvinism, then I can't say it's wrong. It's a fallacy.

Many people have "read the Bible" and found Calvinism to be wrong. Many people have "read the Bible" and found Arminianism to be wrong. Many people have "read the Bible" and found both Calvinism and Arminianism wrong. Many people have "read the Bible" and found Baptist theology wrong. Many people have "read the Bible" and found Presbyterian theology wrong. The issue is that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has been debated for over 400 years and to claim one is wrong simply because you read the Bible provides no support for your stance. Whether we like it or not, both theologies have biblical support, and both theologies rely on logic and philosophies which is why one becomes Calvinist or Arminian -- not because of proof texts.

The thing is, that you are providing scriptures and commentaries and ideas to support your claim, while people who believe in Arminianism are doing the same thing with equal, greater, or lesser support it's been going back and forth. Have you ever thought that the way you view Arminianism is the way and Arminian views a Calvinist? The hasty generalizations you make and the immaturity in your responses are getting very irritating. You can't even answer his questions directly because the reality is your answer is probably no to all of his questions, which then it should be asked, should you be taking such a vehement stance and causing divisions over something you aren't read up on?

And if you want to know where I stand, I haven't read that much of theology as I haven't been saved very long. However, I currently consider myself a Calvinist but I am open to Arminian ideas because I can see why people arrive at that theology, and for me to be "Arminian" will take sometime, if ever, to arrive there. I'm somewhere in between, though I still consider myself a Calvinist. I'm not teaching anyone, nor have I considered myself teaching at all in any of my posts. I'm simply trying to get people to realize the fact that they might be wrong.

The Bible teaches that in the end times people will follow teachers which they agree with. I can't help but think when someone is so adamant that they are right and do not even consider another viewpoint that they have already been guilty of falling into this bible verse.

Very few people have contributed anything at all to this thread (me being excluded from contributing), and among them I consider Dean, Princeton, and Bill who have actually considered the possibility of being wrong and I know for a fact that Dean has studied BOTH theologies thoroughly for a couple of years because he told me, and I would believe Princeton has too. So, you have two intelligent people who are at different ends and both believe the other is a "false teacher" at worst, or someone who is "mistaken" at best.

At least you could respect someone else's view without the tone of sarcasm and teenaged remarks. Honestly, it just makes the Calvinist side look that much more unfavorable in my eyes. If it is Calvinism that is right and we are both representatives of God, I can tell you the past couple of posts from you, if I was not saved, would draw me away from Christianity because of the childishness and disrespect they seem to have. And that's coming from a young "22 year old."

Summary of the Sovereignty of God in Salvation

The "Five Points" of Calvinism

December 10, 1997 | by John Piper | topic: The Sovereignty of God

Subscribe to...

• Text Only Feed
• Sermon Audio
• Sermon Video
• Sermon Text

View list of podcasts and feeds
Loading suggest options...

Salvation is not finally in the hands of man to determine. His choices are crucial, but they are not the final, decisive power in bringing him to glory, God’s sovereign grace is.
1. God elects, chooses, before the foundation of the world whom he will save and whom he will pass by and leave to unbelief and sin and rebellion. He does this unconditionally, not on the basis of foreseen faith that humans produce by a supposed power of ultimate self-determination (= “free will”).
Acts 13:48, “When the gentiles heard this they were glad and glorified the word of God. And as many as were for ordained to eternal life believed.”
Romans 11:7, “Israel failed to obtain what is sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.”
John 6:37, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.” John 17:6, “I have manifested my name to them whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me.” (John 6:44, 65).
2. The Atonement applies to the elect in a unique, particular way, although the death of Christ is sufficient to propitiate the sins of the whole world. The death of Christ effectually accomplished the salvation for all God’s people.
Eph. 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”
Heb. 10:14, “By a single offering he perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
John 10:15, “I lay down my life for the sheep.”
Rom. 8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?”
3. Because of the Fall, humans are incapable of any saving good apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. We are helpless and dead in sin. We have a mindset that “cannot submit to God without divine enabling.
Rom. 8:7-8, “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, it does not submit to God’s law; indeed it cannot. But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.”
Eph. 2:1,5, “You were dead through your trespasses and sins.”
4. God’s call to salvation is effectual, and, hence His grace cannot be ultimately thwarted by human resistance. God’s regenerating call can overcome all human resistance.
Acts 16:14, “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul.”
John 6:65, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by my Father.” (Matt. 16:17; Luke 10:21)
1 Cor. 1:23-24, “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
5. Those whom God calls and regenerates He also keeps, so that they do not totally and finally fall away from faith and grace.
Rom. 8:30, “Those whom he predestined, he also called and those whom he called he also justified and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
John 10:27-29, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me; and I give them eternal life and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”
Phil. 1:6, “I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus.” (1 Cor. 1:8).
1 Thess. 5:23, “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful and he will do it.”
Conclusion
Romans 11:36, “From him, through him, and to him are all things, to him be glory forever amen!”
© Desiring God
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Link: Monergism :: The Five Points of Calvinism

 

[DeaconDean]

Basing on various posts in here, you seem to think Arminianism teaches free will in which man saves himself, which is actually teachings of a heretic named Pelagius, not Arminius.

Are you referring to Modern Arminianism, or Arminianism as defined in 1610?

ARMINIANISM is a teaching regarding salvation associated with the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). The fundamental principle in Arminianism is the rejection of predestination, and a corresponding affirmation of the freedom of the human will. Shortly after his death, the followers of Arminius (later called Arminians) presented a statement to the governing authorities of Holland in which they set forth five articles of doctrine. These were: (1) that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute; (2) that the Atonement is in intention universal; (3) that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith, but requires God's help to attain this faith; (4) that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort it does not act irresistibly in man; (5) that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. In essence, the Arminians maintained that God gives indispensible help in salvation, but that ultimately it is the free will of man which decides the issue.

Source

And it goes further to say:

Arminianism

• Free-will or human ability. Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe but does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists in 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. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.

Ibid

No sir, we do not have a misunderstanding of the Arminian idea of "free will".

We know exactly what Arminianism teaches.

Did I miss anything?

At least you could respect someone else's view without the tone of sarcasm and teenaged remarks. Honestly, it just makes the Calvinist side look that much more unfavorable in my eyes. If it is Calvinism that is right and we are both representatives of God, I can tell you the past couple of posts from you, if I was not saved, would draw me away from Christianity because of the childishness and disrespect they seem to have. And that's coming from a young "22 year old."

Friend, you come in here with the same attitude.

You come in here, claiming to be Calvinist, but you bash the Calvinist side, and anybody who presents Calvinist doctrines.

You have came in here with a chip already on your shoulder.

While you fault DD for his actions, you have done the same.

And its not all your fault, when individuals come into threads like this with preconcieved notions, understanding stops at the door. Ears are closed, and eyes are shut.

I'm guilty of this, so is DD, so is PG.

You claim to be a "new convert" however, you have jumped the gun somewhat. You should be being fed on milk, not meat.

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." -Heb. 5:12-14 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one

 

[DD2008]

Are you referring to Modern Arminianism, or Arminianism as defined in 1610?



Source

And it goes further to say:


Ibid

No sir, we do not have a misunderstanding of the Arminian idea of "free will".

We know exactly what Arminianism teaches.

Did I miss anything?



Friend, you come in here with the same attitude.

You come in here, claiming to be Calvinist, but you bash the Calvinist side, and anybody who presents Calvinist doctrines.

You have came in here with a chip already on your shoulder.

While you fault DD for his actions, you have done the same.

And its not all your fault, when individuals come into threads like this with preconcieved notions, understanding stops at the door. Ears are closed, and eyes are shut.

I'm guilty of this, so is DD, so is PG.

You claim to be a "new convert" however, you have jumped the gun somewhat. You should be being fed on milk, not meat.

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." -Heb. 5:12-14 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one

Very good post here by Dean. It's very true.

Dean is exactly right about me as well. I believe the bible teaches sovereign grace. I am convicted of that. I am not willing to compromise that. I was raised in a calvinistic household. I rebelled from that and have had a diverse and detailed personal journey and am fully convicted that sovereign grace is what the bible teaches and believe the opposing views are wrong because not only have I studied them but I have been in fellowship with the churches that teach them and I know their errors. God led me back home and acknowledging the truth is not something about me that will ever change. So there is no way I will even consider an opposing view. I will only oppose an opposing view. I am in the Baptist calvinist camp 100%. It is a waste of time to try to convert me to anything else, because I believe I know God, I know the bible, and I know the truth about salvation.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Very good post here by Dean. It's very true.

Dean is exactly right about me as well. I believe the bible teaches sovereign grace. I am convicted of that. I am not willing to compromise that. I was raised in a calvinistic household. I rebelled from that and have had a diverse and detailed personal journey and am fully convicted that sovereign grace is what the bible teaches and believe the opposing views are wrong because not only have I studied them but I have been in fellowship with the churches that teach them and I know their errors. God led me back home and acknowledging the truth is not something about me that will ever change. So there is no way I will even consider an opposing view. I will only oppose an opposing view. I am in the Baptist calvinist camp 100%. It is a waste of time to try to convert me to anything else, because I believe I know God, I know the bible, and I know the truth about salvation.

The Bible teaches that our sovereign God created man with the ability to choose either good or evil, extending to man a portion of His sovereignty. Adam chose to do evil rather than good, having been tempted by Satan, through his wife Eve, to sin, and was cast out of the garden. His ability to choose, however, was left intact and his children and their children made their own choices, some good, and some bad. So it is down to this day—we all make choices everyday, some of which are good, and some of which are bad. Regardless of those choices, however, all of mankind has sinned in Adam, and all of mankind is, therefore, guilty of sin and in need of redemption.

The Bible describes many individual men and women and the choices that they made, and, in a few cases, the role that God had in the choices that they made. Looking back on my own life, I can see very clearly the hand of God and His sovereign will at work. I can also see that I made some very bad choices, including some choices that God told me, through one means or another, not to make. God, being both sovereign and gracious, chose to forgive me of those bad choices, but, because they were bad choices, I suffered the consequences that came with the bad choices.

A few passages in the Bible seem to suggest that God is absolutely sovereign; a host of other passages in the Bible speak of the Christian’s responsibility to make the right choices in life. Indeed, throughout the New Testament, we find admonitions to make the right choices—making it expressly clear that Christians have a choice between obedience to God, and willful disobedience. How do we reconcile God’s sovereignty with man’s responsibility to make the right choices? Typically, in the Bible, we find man with his free will—but we also find, in a few instances, God exercising His sovereignty over the will of man. Therefore, the question has come into the minds of very many Christians—“to what extent do I have a free will; and to what extent is God’s sovereign will exercised in my life?”

My theological views have matured over the years that I have been a Christian, that maturing being due to years of both experience and study. With each new experience and each new thing learned, my beliefs regarding the sovereignty of God and man’s free will shift slightly, taking into account the new information. In order for any interpretation of the Bible to be the correct interpretation, it MUST be in harmony with ALL of the relative data. As the storehouse of that data increases, our interpretation of the Bible should be modified in accord with that data. If it is not, we are no more than the proverbial ostrich with his head stuck in the sand—a very dangerous, and potentially lethal place to be.

 

[DD2008]

The Bible teaches that our sovereign God created man with the ability to choose either good or evil, extending to man a portion of His sovereignty. Adam chose to do evil rather than good, having been tempted by Satan, through his wife Eve, to sin, and was cast out of the garden. His ability to choose, however, was left intact and his children and their children made their own choices, some good, and some bad. So it is down to this day—we all make choices everyday, some of which are good, and some of which are bad. Regardless of those choices, however, all of mankind has sinned in Adam, and all of mankind is, therefore, guilty of sin and in need of redemption.

I agree in part. However I believe it is clear that the bible teaches that man is radicaly depraved after the fall. He has free will to choose and chooses according to his nature.

The Bible describes many individual men and women and the choices that they made, and, in a few cases, the role that God had in the choices that they made. Looking back on my own life, I can see very clearly the hand of God and His sovereign will at work. I can also see that I made some very bad choices, including some choices that God told me, through one means or another, not to make. God, being both sovereign and gracious, chose to forgive me of those bad choices, but, because they were bad choices, I suffered the consequences that came with the bad choices.

Nothing out of the ordinary there.

A few passages in the Bible seem to suggest that God is absolutely sovereign; a host of other passages in the Bible speak of the Christian’s responsibility to make the right choices in life. Indeed, throughout the New Testament, we find admonitions to make the right choices—making it expressly clear that Christians have a choice between obedience to God, and willful disobedience.

The bible never contradicts itself, so we observe the law of non contradiction. We discern what questionable passages mean by making sure that they do not contradict the definitive passages. An example of a definitive passage is "I do not change" etc. Man having the free will to choose for himself according to his nature will do so. He will choose to be depraved in his natural state and will choose to cooperate with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in his regenerated state. What he does not choose is to have his nature changed. A man's nature is either natural or an unnatural gift of God.

How do we reconcile God’s sovereignty with man’s responsibility to make the right choices? Typically, in the Bible, we find man with his free will—but we also find, in a few instances, God exercising His sovereignty over the will of man. Therefore, the question has come into the minds of very many Christians—“to what extent do I have a free will; and to what extent is God’s sovereign will exercised in my life?”

You are free to act according to your nature. God is free to give you a new nature if he so chooses. You are then free to act according to that nature and cooperate with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

My theological views have matured over the years that I have been a Christian, that maturing being due to years of both experience and study. With each new experience and each new thing learned, my beliefs regarding the sovereignty of God and man’s free will shift slightly, taking into account the new information. In order for any interpretation of the Bible to be the correct interpretation, it MUST be in harmony with ALL of the relative data. As the storehouse of that data increases, our interpretation of the Bible should be modified in accord with that data. If it is not, we are no more than the proverbial ostrich with his head stuck in the sand—a very dangerous, and potentially lethal place to be.

I agree. We must adhere to the law of non-contradiction in our hermeneutics. God is not the author of confusion but has revealed accuratley what he wanted to reveal to us.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I agree in part. However I believe it is clear that the bible teaches that man is radicaly depraved after the fall. He has free will to choose and chooses according to his nature.

The doctrine that man became totally depraved as a consequence of Adam’s sin in the garden is not taught anywhere in the Bible; indeed, in the New Testament, we find a statement by Paul that expressly contradicts that doctrine:

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (ESV)P

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (KJV)

Romans 2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, (NKJV)

Romans 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; (ASV)

Romans 2:14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (RSV)

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. (NAB)

In this verse, Paul is declaring that the unregenerate Gentiles do by nature what the Law requires. The English word nature is a translation of the Greek word regularly translated as “nature” in the KJV and several other standard translations, and this Greek word means the “natural tendencies of a plant, an animal, a human being, or a deity.” Therefore, Paul is saying in Romans 2:14 that the natural tendency of the unregenerate Gentiles is to do by nature what the law requires. The concept of many Reformed theologians that the natural tendency of the unregenerate man is to sin rather than obey God could not possibly be more inaccurate—it is a direct contradiction of the express teaching of Scripture. The natural tendency of Adam in the garden was to obey God, and he did so until he was deceived by Satan and gave into Satan’s temptation. And so it is today with the unregenerate man—his natural tendency is to seek out and obey God—thus giving rise to the multitude of religions around the world (see, for example, Acts. 17:16-32). And just as Adam was tempted in the garden, the unregenerate man is tempted by Satan to sin.

We were all born into this world with the guilt of Adam’s sin, and, therefore, all in need of redemption—redemption that comes only by grace through faith in Christ. Satan, the deceiver of the whole world (Rev. 12:9), knows this and uses every imaginable deception to deceive men into believing every imaginable lie lest men obey their natural tendency to seek out and obey God.

 

[faceofbear]

Dean,

That source is Calvinistic biased. You should know better than to post material on Arminianism by someone who is opposed to it (the source did make me laugh though ). At any rate, I appreciate your concern, however, I believe the issue between Calvinism and Arminianism is the crux of the gospel because it defines who God is and defines which type of theological stance in church I should go to. I believe the debate between Arminius and Calvinist, in fact, is the core of the Gospel because it affects all doctrines of soteriology. However, what would you recommend as "milk," if not this?

At any rate...

Calvinists are known for misrepresenting Arminius theology or mistaking it for Remonstrantism or the teachings of Philip Limborch (ignorantly, mistakenly, or purposefully -- whatever it be, they do, but Arminians do the same to Calvinists).

I'm speaking of the origin of classical Arminian theology, not Remonstrantism which was a departure from his teachings. Or as what Wesley taught.

In regards to man saving themselves or "co-opperating with God":

Jacob Arminius:

I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance, and the consummation of all good, -- and to such an extend do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.--From this statement it will clearly appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will: For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution to this question, "Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation,-- whether it be irresistible or not: With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.
- Arminius, "A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius," Works, 1:664.
​

To explain the matter I will employ a simile which yet, I confess is very dissimilar, but its dissimilitude is greatly in favour of my sentiments. A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propiety, that "the alms depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on the liberty of the Receiver," though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that "he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?" If the assertions cannot be truly made aobut a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine Grace are required!
-Arminius, "The Apology or Defence of James Arminius, D.D.," Works, 2:52.

​

John Wesley:

This position of the words, conencting the phrase of "His good pleasure with the word "worketh," removes all imagination of merit from man, and gives God the whole glory of His own work. Otherwise we might have had some room for boasting, as if it were our own desert, some goodness in us, or some good thing done by us, which first moved God to work. But this expression cuts off all such vain conceits, and clearly shows his motive to work lay wholly in himself -- in his own mere grace, in his unmerited mercy.
- John Wesley, "Working Out Our Own Salvation," p. 202.

​

Richard Watson:

Equally sacred is the doctrine to be held, that no person can repent or truly believe except under the influence of the Spirit of God; and that we have no ground of boasting in ourselves, but that all the glory of our salvation, commenced and consummated, is to be given to God alone, as the result of the freeness and riches of His grace.
-Richard Watson, Theological Institutes (New York: Lane & Scott, 1851), p. 447.

​

William Burton Pope:

No ability remains in man to return to God; and this avowal concedes and vindicates the pith of original sin as internal. The natural man is without the power to even co-operate with Dvinie influence. The co-operation with grace is of grace. Thus it keeps itself for ever safe from Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.
-William Burton Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (New York: Phillips & Hunt, n.d.), 2:47.
​

Thomas Summers:

God alone regenerates the soul; but he will not regenerate anyone whom he does not justify -- and God alone justifieth; but he will not justify anyone who does not renounce his sins by repentance, and embrace the Savior by faith. We need hardly say that though no one can repent or believe without the aid of God's grace, yet God can neither repent nor believe for any man.
- Thomas O. Summers, Systematic Theology (Nashville: Publishing house of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888), p. 120.

​

Simon Episcopius:

Man therefore hath not saving faith of or from himself; nor is he born again or converted by the power of his own free will: seeing in the state of sin he cannot so much as think, much less will or do any good which is indeed savingly good... of or from himself: but it is necessary that he be regenerated and wholly renewed of God in Christ by the word of the gospel and by the virtue of the Holy Spirit in conjunction therewith; to wit, in understanding, affections, will, and all his powers and faculties, that he may be able to rightly understand, meditate on, will, and perform these things that are savingly good.
- Simon Episcopius, Confession of Faith of Those Called Arminians (London: Heart & Bible, 1684), p. 204.

​

The crux of the issue is not that Arminianism teaches freewill, it doesn't, it teaches freed will by grace. It is not that Arminianism teaches that man co-operates with God and becomes a co-Author if man's salvation, it does not. Faith is the work of the Spirit enabled by prevening grace, therefore, it is grace that enables grace to provide grace. The disagreement is whether man can resist grace or not. In other words, God wills all men to be saved, but man mus not resist grace. Therefore, it is a work NOT to be saved, but is not a work to be saved... it is grace. It is only teaching the responsibility of man, which God will judge every man according to their works because God is not a God of partiality. But all good works are ascribed to the grace of God. Not the free will of man.

Philippians 2:12-13 (King James Version)
12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

It is not just autonomous creatures that God has made us. He has created us with responsibility. Grace given, grace responsive, abilities. The difference is, though I believe God is sovereign, though I believe God saved me, I do not believe God made me an autonomous stone and provided me with no will, or else I wouldn't be able to pray, "Not mine will, but Your's be done." I do not believe for a second that when we are told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved," actually means, "Sit around in your house and wait till you die and see if God chose you and you'll be saved, or else you're elected to eternity to be tormented forever in Hell for something you could not elsewise do because God provided no grace for you." Nor do I believe I co-operated with God to save myself. I believe that God wholly, completely, thoroughly, saved me with nothing of myself contributing.

 

[DD2008]

The doctrine that man became totally depraved as a consequence of Adam’s sin in the garden is not taught anywhere in the Bible; indeed, in the New Testament, we find a statement by Paul that expressly contradicts that doctrine:

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (ESV)P

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (KJV)

Romans 2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, (NKJV)

Romans 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; (ASV)

Romans 2:14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (RSV)

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. (NAB)

In this verse, Paul is declaring that the unregenerate Gentiles do by nature what the Law requires. The English word nature is a translation of the Greek word regularly translated as “nature” in the KJV and several other standard translations, and this Greek word means the “natural tendencies of a plant, an animal, a human being, or a deity.” Therefore, Paul is saying in Romans 2:14 that the natural tendency of the unregenerate Gentiles is to do by nature what the law requires. The concept of many Reformed theologians that the natural tendency of the unregenerate man is to sin rather than obey God could not possibly be more inaccurate—it is a direct contradiction of the express teaching of Scripture. The natural tendency of Adam in the garden was to obey God, and he did so until he was deceived by Satan and gave into Satan’s temptation. And so it is today with the unregenerate man—his natural tendency is to seek out and obey God—thus giving rise to the multitude of religions around the world (see, for example, Acts. 17:16-32). And just as Adam was tempted in the garden, the unregenerate man is tempted by Satan to sin.

We were all born into this world with the guilt of Adam’s sin, and, therefore, all in need of redemption—redemption that comes only by grace through faith in Christ. Satan, the deceiver of the whole world (Rev. 12:9), knows this and uses every imaginable deception to deceive men into believing every imaginable lie lest men obey their natural tendency to seek out and obey God.

You misunderstand the meaning of total depravity. The biblical teaching of the total depravity of fallen man isn't utter depravity. It doesn't mean that man is as depraved as he can possibly be all the time. It simply means that man in his natural state is unable to please God. He is ungodly. Naturally wicked and seperated from God by his sin. That is why he needs to be regenerated (born again) by the power of the Holy Spirit so that he can trust in Christ and please God.

As explained by Dr. Loraine Boettner for example:

In the Westminster Confession the doctrine of Total Inability is stated as follows: — “Man, by his fall Into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”l
Paul, Augustine, and Calvin have as their starting point the fact that all mankind sinned in Adam and that all men are “without excuse,” Rom. 2:1. Time and again Paul tells us that we are dead in trespasses and sins, estranged from God, and helpless. In writing to the Ephesian Christians he reminded them that before they received the Gospel they were “separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world,” 2:12. There we notice the five-fold emphasis as he piles phrase on top of phrase to stress this truth.

This doctrine of Total Inability, which declares that men are dead in sin, does not mean that all men are equally bad, nor that any man is as bad as he could be, nor that any one is entirely destitute of virtue, nor that human nature is evil in itself, nor that man‘s spirit is inactive, and much less does it mean that the body Is dead. What it does mean is that since the fail man rests under the curse of sin, that he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to love God or to do anything meriting salvation. His corruption is extensive but not necessarily intensive.

Link: "Total Depravity" by Loraine Boettner

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You misunderstand the meaning of total depravity. The biblical teaching of the total depravity of fallen man isn't utter depravity. It doesn't mean that man is as depraved as he can possibly be all the time. It simply means that man in his natural state is unable to please God. He is ungodly. Naturally wicked and seperated from God by his sin. That is why he needs to be regenerated (born again) by the power of the Holy Spirit so that he can trust in Christ and please God.

As explained by Dr. Loraine Boettner for example:



Link: "Total Depravity" by Loraine Boettner

No, I have not misunderstood the teaching of total depravity. I wrote,

“The concept of many Reformed theologians that the natural tendency of the unregenerate man is to sin rather than obey God could not possibly be more inaccurate….” I did not write that Loraine Boettner believes this. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, in their frequently quoted book, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented, write,

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not—indeed he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.
​

Notice their words, “his evil nature.” It is this concept of total depravity that I have refuted in my post, and not the concept of total depravity held by Loraine Boettner. Furthermore, very many reformed theologians would not agree with Loraine Boettner’s understanding of the Westminster Confession. However, the concept of total depravity found in the Westminster Confession is inaccurate because nowhere in the Bible do we find the concept of all unregenerate men being continually in a state of sin, having fallen into it irrecoverably without regeneration.

My next-door neighbor is a Mormon—through and through—and thus an unregenerate man. Nonetheless, he is the best neighbor that I have ever had because his love for his neighbors is not just an empty slogan—it is the very essence of his being. Yes, he sinned in Adam and is guilty of that sin. Yes, he has himself sinned, sometimes procrastinating instead of performing some tasks in a timely manner. Yes, he is in need of redemption, and that redemption can only come by grace through faith in Christ as the Son of God, but his nature and the state of his being are more loving and pure than the very large majority of regenerate people that I have known.

 

[DD2008]

No, I have not misunderstood the teaching of total depravity. I wrote,

“The concept of many Reformed theologians that the natural tendency of the unregenerate man is to sin rather than obey God could not possibly be more inaccurate….” I did not write that Loraine Boettner believes this. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, in their frequently quoted book, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented, write,

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not—indeed he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.
​

Notice their words, “his evil nature.” It is this concept of total depravity that I have refuted in my post, and not the concept of total depravity held by Loraine Boettner. Furthermore, very many reformed theologians would not agree with Loraine Boettner’s understanding of the Westminster Confession. However, the concept of total depravity found in the Westminster Confession is inaccurate because nowhere in the Bible do we find the concept of all unregenerate men being continually in a state of sin, having fallen into it irrecoverably without regeneration.

My next-door neighbor is a Mormon—through and through—and thus an unregenerate man. Nonetheless, he is the best neighbor that I have ever had because his love for his neighbors is not just an empty slogan—it is the very essence of his being. Yes, he sinned in Adam and is guilty of that sin. Yes, he has himself sinned, sometimes procrastinating instead of performing some tasks in a timely manner. Yes, he is in need of redemption, and that redemption can only come by grace through faith in Christ as the Son of God, but his nature and the state of his being are more loving and pure than the very large majority of regenerate people that I have known.

Things are only good because God who defines what good is said it was good. God is the definer of good.

Your mormon neighbor may do things that to you look good. However, you are not the omniscient judge to know his heart. HIs deeds are only truely good if they are godly. If he is just doing them because he is following rules his cult wrote for him then he is using people as a means of achieving his personal goal. Who are we to judge? All we know is that a mormon isn't a christian so he needs to be evangelized. If he were a christian he would stop being a mormon and serve Christ.

So anyone who is not a Christian is not good, because Christ is the way the truth and the life and no one will be saved without him. It doesn't matter how pretty they smile or how much attention and money they give you or how many cakes they bake you. If Christ isn't in their heart their heart is black and dead and rotting and they are doomed to an eternity of hell that they earned because they have not repented of their sin and followed the Lord Jesus Christ who in himself is everything that is really good. So, they are totally depraved and lost without hope.

So, yes you obviously do misunderstand the biblical doctrine of the depravity of fallen man.

And yes the bible says many times that man is evil and needs to be born again. For instance, from the same link I posted earlier:

7. SCRIPTURE PROOF​

• I Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
• Gen. 2:17: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
• Rom. 5:12: Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.
• II Cor. 1:9: Yea, we ourselves had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead.
• Eph. 2:1-3: And you did He make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom ye also all once lived in the lusts of your flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
• Eph. 2:12: Ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
• Jer. 13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
• Ps. 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
• John 3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
• Rom. 3:10-12: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one;
  There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh afterGod;
  They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable;
  There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one.
• Job 14:4: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
• I Cor. 1:18: For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
• Acts 13:41: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you.
• Prov. 30:12: There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes,
  And yet are not washed from their filthiness.
• John 5:21: For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.
• John 6:53: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
• John 8:19: They said therefore unto Him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father; if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.
• Matt. 11:25: I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes.
• II Cor. 5:17: if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature. John 14:16: (And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever,) even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him; ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you.
• John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that light is come unto the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Things are only good because God who defines what good is said it was good. God is the definer of good.

Your mormon neighbor may do things that to you look good. However, you are not the omniscient judge to know his heart. HIs deeds are only truely good if they are godly. If he is just doing them because he is following rules his cult wrote for him then he is using people as a means of achieving his personal goal. Who are we to judge? All we know is that a mormon isn't a christian so he needs to be evangelized. If he were a christian he would stop being a mormon and serve Christ.

So anyone who is not a Christian is not good, because Christ is the way the truth and the life and no one will be saved without him. It doesn't matter how pretty they smile or how much attention and money they give you or how many cakes they bake you. If Christ isn't in their heart their heart is black and dead and rotting and they are doomed to an eternity of hell that they earned because they have not repented of their sin and followed the Lord Jesus Christ who in himself is everything that is really good. So, they are totally depraved and lost without hope.

So, yes you obviously do misunderstand the biblical doctrine of the depravity of fallen man.

And yes the bible says many times that man is evil and needs to be born again. For instance, from the same link I posted earlier:

7. SCRIPTURE PROOF​

• I Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
• Gen. 2:17: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
• Rom. 5:12: Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.
• II Cor. 1:9: Yea, we ourselves had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead.
• Eph. 2:1-3: And you did He make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom ye also all once lived in the lusts of your flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
• Eph. 2:12: Ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
• Jer. 13:23: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
• Ps. 51:5: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
• John 3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
• Rom. 3:10-12: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one;
  There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh afterGod;
  They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable;
  There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one.
• Job 14:4: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
• I Cor. 1:18: For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
• Acts 13:41: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you.
• Prov. 30:12: There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes,
  And yet are not washed from their filthiness.
• John 5:21: For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.
• John 6:53: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
• John 8:19: They said therefore unto Him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father; if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.
• Matt. 11:25: I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes.
• II Cor. 5:17: if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature. John 14:16: (And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever,) even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him; ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you.
• John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that light is come unto the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

It is not at all difficult for a Christian to discern whether the heart of a man with whom he is well acquainted is good or evil. The heart of my Mormon neighbor is good—very much more so than that of most of the Christians that I have known. Does he need to be saved? Yes. Do most of the Christians that I have known need to behave much more like my Mormon neighbor? Yes.

As I have documented in posts above, the doctrine of total depravity is variously understood and taught by Reformed theologians. I understand their various points of view, but I disagree with the concept as a whole because it is, as I have documented, expressly contradicted by Scripture. The Scriptures that you quoted, when a Tilt-A-Whirl spin is taken off of them, neither say nor imply that the unregenerate man is unable to favorably respond to the Gospel of his own free will. Even the evilest of men, when presented with the Christian gospel message, the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, the testimony of the Mormons, or the beliefs of the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, or the American Indians are free to either believe or reject that which is presented to them. Indeed, very many people in third-world countries believe a combination of the Christian gospel and their tribal religion.

 

[DD2008]

It is not at all difficult for a Christian to discern whether the heart of a man with whom he is well acquainted is good or evil. The heart of my Mormon neighbor is good—very much more so than that of most of the Christians that I have known. Does he need to be saved? Yes. Do most of the Christians that I have known need to behave much more like my Mormon neighbor? Yes.

As I have documented in posts above, the doctrine of total depravity is variously understood and taught by Reformed theologians. I understand their various points of view, but I disagree with the concept as a whole because it is, as I have documented, expressly contradicted by Scripture. The Scriptures that you quoted, when a Tilt-A-Whirl spin is taken off of them, neither say nor imply that the unregenerate man is unable to favorably respond to the Gospel of his own free will. Even the evilest of men, when presented with the Christian gospel message, the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, the testimony of the Mormons, or the beliefs of the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, or the American Indians are free to either believe or reject that which is presented to them. Indeed, very many people in third-world countries believe a combination of the Christian gospel and their tribal religion.

Mark 10:18 NIV
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean,

That source is Calvinistic biased. You should know better than to post material on Arminianism by someone who is opposed to it (the source did make me laugh though ). At any rate, I appreciate your concern, however, I believe the issue between Calvinism and Arminianism is the crux of the gospel because it defines who God is and defines which type of theological stance in church I should go to. I believe the debate between Arminius and Calvinist, in fact, is the core of the Gospel because it affects all doctrines of soteriology. However, what would you recommend as "milk," if not this?

At any rate...

Calvinists are known for misrepresenting Arminius theology or mistaking it for Remonstrantism or the teachings of Philip Limborch (ignorantly, mistakenly, or purposefully -- whatever it be, they do, but Arminians do the same to Calvinists).

I'm speaking of the origin of classical Arminian theology, not Remonstrantism which was a departure from his teachings. Or as what Wesley taught.

In regards to man saving themselves or "co-opperating with God":

Jacob Arminius:

I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance, and the consummation of all good, -- and to such an extend do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.--From this statement it will clearly appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will: For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution to this question, "Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation,-- whether it be irresistible or not: With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.
- Arminius, "A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius," Works, 1:664.
​

To explain the matter I will employ a simile which yet, I confess is very dissimilar, but its dissimilitude is greatly in favour of my sentiments. A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propiety, that "the alms depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on the liberty of the Receiver," though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that "he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?" If the assertions cannot be truly made aobut a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine Grace are required!
-Arminius, "The Apology or Defence of James Arminius, D.D.," Works, 2:52.

​

John Wesley:

This position of the words, conencting the phrase of "His good pleasure with the word "worketh," removes all imagination of merit from man, and gives God the whole glory of His own work. Otherwise we might have had some room for boasting, as if it were our own desert, some goodness in us, or some good thing done by us, which first moved God to work. But this expression cuts off all such vain conceits, and clearly shows his motive to work lay wholly in himself -- in his own mere grace, in his unmerited mercy.
- John Wesley, "Working Out Our Own Salvation," p. 202.


​

Richard Watson:

Equally sacred is the doctrine to be held, that no person can repent or truly believe except under the influence of the Spirit of God; and that we have no ground of boasting in ourselves, but that all the glory of our salvation, commenced and consummated, is to be given to God alone, as the result of the freeness and riches of His grace.
-Richard Watson, Theological Institutes (New York: Lane & Scott, 1851), p. 447.

​

William Burton Pope:

No ability remains in man to return to God; and this avowal concedes and vindicates the pith of original sin as internal. The natural man is without the power to even co-operate with Dvinie influence. The co-operation with grace is of grace. Thus it keeps itself for ever safe from Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.
-William Burton Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (New York: Phillips & Hunt, n.d.), 2:47.
​

Thomas Summers:

God alone regenerates the soul; but he will not regenerate anyone whom he does not justify -- and God alone justifieth; but he will not justify anyone who does not renounce his sins by repentance, and embrace the Savior by faith. We need hardly say that though no one can repent or believe without the aid of God's grace, yet God can neither repent nor believe for any man.
- Thomas O. Summers, Systematic Theology (Nashville: Publishing house of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888), p. 120.

​

Simon Episcopius:

Man therefore hath not saving faith of or from himself; nor is he born again or converted by the power of his own free will: seeing in the state of sin he cannot so much as think, much less will or do any good which is indeed savingly good... of or from himself: but it is necessary that he be regenerated and wholly renewed of God in Christ by the word of the gospel and by the virtue of the Holy Spirit in conjunction therewith; to wit, in understanding, affections, will, and all his powers and faculties, that he may be able to rightly understand, meditate on, will, and perform these things that are savingly good.
- Simon Episcopius, Confession of Faith of Those Called Arminians (London: Heart & Bible, 1684), p. 204.

​

The crux of the issue is not that Arminianism teaches freewill, it doesn't, it teaches freed will by grace. It is not that Arminianism teaches that man co-operates with God and becomes a co-Author if man's salvation, it does not. Faith is the work of the Spirit enabled by prevening grace, therefore, it is grace that enables grace to provide grace. The disagreement is whether man can resist grace or not. In other words, God wills all men to be saved, but man mus not resist grace. Therefore, it is a work NOT to be saved, but is not a work to be saved... it is grace. It is only teaching the responsibility of man, which God will judge every man according to their works because God is not a God of partiality. But all good works are ascribed to the grace of God. Not the free will of man.

Philippians 2:12-13 (King James Version)
12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

It is not just autonomous creatures that God has made us. He has created us with responsibility. Grace given, grace responsive, abilities. The difference is, though I believe God is sovereign, though I believe God saved me, I do not believe God made me an autonomous stone and provided me with no will, or else I wouldn't be able to pray, "Not mine will, but Your's be done." I do not believe for a second that when we are told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved," actually means, "Sit around in your house and wait till you die and see if God chose you and you'll be saved, or else you're elected to eternity to be tormented forever in Hell for something you could not elsewise do because God provided no grace for you." Nor do I believe I co-operated with God to save myself. I believe that God wholly, completely, thoroughly, saved me with nothing of myself contributing.

Lets just say this, Arminianism as start by the theology of Jacobus Arminus, would almost parallel Calvinism with the exception of their respected beliefs in "Perseverance".

Jacobus Arminus said:

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

Jacobus Arminus, The Works of Jacobus Arminus, Vol 1, A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminus on, Section 1, On Predetination, Section 5, My Own Sentiments on Predestination, Sub-Sect. III, Free Will

Source

Jacobus Arminus believed very much the same as Calvinists did on "free will".

It is modern Arminians who have led most Arminians astray.

It is modern Arminians who have "elevated" and "touted" human "free will" to the point that it is the single most important driving factor in their theology.

And John Wesley is one of the biggest proponets of our "modern" times.

The crux of the issue is not that Arminianism teaches freewill, it doesn't, it teaches freed will by grace.

Again, you are wrong.

Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man's freedom. 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. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; it is man's contribution to salvation.

Man though his own free will, chooses to co-operate with God.

There it is in black and white.

Nuff said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ToddMyers]

Merry Christmas.

 

[faceofbear]

Dean,

I really appreciate your input. You're very intelligent. But as this continues I am seeing a trend in that this whole discussion is a misunderstanding. That is, our issues aren't really with each other's beliefs but the semantics of them and that we seemingly are using different definitions to explain the same thing. It's solely semantic noise in our discussion preventing it from progress.

Lets just say this, Arminianism as start by the theology of Jacobus Arminus, would almost parallel Calvinism with the exception of their respected beliefs in "Perseverance".

I agree, which is what I've been trying to say the whole time. Hence why I've been getting frustrated of DD and others trying to imply that I believe in free will and not the sovereignty of God.

Jacobus Arminus believed very much the same as Calvinists did on "free will".

Again. I agree. Any will of man is due to divine grace and God's allowance. Not by man's own will or man's own power. It is all of grace.

It is modern Arminians who have led most Arminians astray.

I disagree. It is modern professing Arminians who are pelagian that have lead Arminians astray. Similarly, we can call them "wolfs in sheeps clothes." They might say they are Arminian, but the question is, are they really Arminian if they departed from Arminius teachings?

It is modern Arminians who have "elevated" and "touted" human "free will" to the point that it is the single most important driving factor in their theology.

Agreed. And it wasn't meant to be. Man's will was the END result of Arminius theology because Arminius STARTED with the love of God and made the love of God the main thing (as opposed to deterministic sovereignty).

And John Wesley is one of the biggest proponets of our "modern" times.

I don't agree with this. From what I've read on Wesley, he seems on par with Arminius, and seemingly restored true Arminian theology from the liberalization that occurred through the Remonstrants. However, I would agree that Wesleyan churches, i.e. Methodist, are. But I won't argue because you probably know more than me, but historically, I believe, it is proven that Wesley brought true Arminian doctrine back from the liberalization of Limborch and Remonstrantism which lead to deism and Pelaganist teachings, which, don't even deserve to be called Arminian.

But I will give you that MANY "professing Arminians" have liberalized John Wesleys teachings to sound pelagian. I'll provide you some of Wesleys teachings (which you probably know) tomorrow. He seems far from teaching free will, and in fact, seems very close to a Calvinist which some have even called him a confused Calvinist.

Man though his own free will, chooses to co-operate with God.

There it is in black and white.

Nuff said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The issue, I believe, is again, the confusion between remonstrantism and Classical Arminianism. True Arminianism doesn't teach that man co-operates with God.

God bless you Dean. And Merry Christmas Eve. May it remind us more of the miracle of the virgin birth of the Christ.

 

[His_disciple3]

I don't mean to be rude, but the post in which you responded to me is all distorted and I don't have the patience to figure out what you were trying to say. Simply put, you quote the end of Romans 8, but you forget what Paul said in the beginning of Romans 8.

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Paul is clearly addressing brothers, not false believers, but believers and then states that if believers live according to the flesh, and not the Spirit (unless you believe a false believer has the potential to live in the Spirit without the Spirit), they will die.

Paul has made it clear that grace can be received in vain and that believers can taste of Spiritual things and fall away which makes it near impossible for them to be restored to repentance.

I am simply throwing out these disagreements, not necessarily because I believe them, but I believe too many people take such a dogmatic stance on things that they never consider the fact that they might be wrong. And proverbs has a lot to say about people who are dogmatic and believe they are right -- but are blind due to their own pride and arrogance.

Also, if as Paul says, love does not insist on it's own way, and nothing can separate a believer from God's love in Christ, and who's very nature is love, then why would God insist on keeping those who wish to depart from the faith?

I would also like to state that OSAS provides NO security for any believers. Why? Because a person can have a false profession, a false faith, and false fruits -- and then "were never truly saved." You might say, "Well, I know I'm saved -- I've had fruits, I have faith, I'm grounded in Christ." Yeah, but I'm sure countless others who fell away thought the same thing and you'd have the guts to say, "But they were never saved." I'm sorry, but I'll leave that for God to determine.

Again, I am not saying that these are my beliefs, but I believe it's a mistake to take such a dogmatic stance that you are simply opposed to every other alternative and making a mockery out of those who disagree with you in stating that they are calling God a liar. I am certain there are many faithful Arminians to scripture, just as their are Calvinists, and this debate has been going over centuries. I highly doubt you'll simply persuade someone quoting Romans 8, because there are just as many verses that show us one CAN lose their salvation -- and to disagree with that is to read your own doctrine into scripture and to deny what scripture says so plainly.

Galatians 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Again, if we insist that only "true" believers persevere, then what you are insisting is in fact that Paul says in Galatians 6:9, "True Believers don't become weary, nor give up, and reap a harvest at the proper time." However, I see Paul teaching something conditional. Not unconditional.

In regards to my beliefs, I used to be a high Calvinist, but I am being persuaded a little less from my Calvinism roots as I see the majority of the early church and very faithful people to the scriptures were synergists, not mongergist -- and not pelagian, either. But as of now, to be sure, I am a Calvinist -- but again, as I read scripture literally for what it says, it's beginning to change... if not already.

However, to be completely honest, I do not believe scripture alone, in this case, is particularly useful because scripture alone has been the debate over this for a long time. I honestly believe it is either a combination of the two -- as paradoxical as that sounds, or will be needed to be resolved by logic, or not until Heaven. But I don't agree with stating that someone is calling God a liar simply because they disagree with my interpretation of scripture. In fact, that is all they are doing. Calling your interpretation wrong, which is not an unbiased objective look at scripture. So at worst, they're calling you're interpretation a lie... not God.

study to show thy self approved, rightly dividing the Word of truth.

can you please show me where Romans 8:12-13 says "you will die" means a spiritual death and not a physical death???? we have to rightly divide there is two deaths, so which one is these verses referring to?

because as I see it, it has to mean a physical death, and once I again . let me say that many are deceived about salvation, because they believe everytime death is mentioned is scriptures they assume it is a spiritual death that is being referred to.

Romans 8:12-13
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
KJV


If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. the flesh is referring to the physical body, so in the same thought if we live in the flesh we die in the flesh(physical body/physical death) Also another area people allow themselves to be mislead in is the Term "brethren" when "Brethren" is mentioned in the new testiment, it is not always a Christian. Paul was a Jew and Jews also refer to another Jew as "brethren" Paul is preaching salvation here. why would He preach salvation to a Christian "Brethren"
you have to RIGHTLY DIVIDE or you will mess yourself up plus misguide others in your teachings!! If we are saved by Faith, then that Faith must be in God and Not ourselves!! to preach that one can fall away and then get saved again is as much a license to sin as OSAS is. for I don't have to worry about if I sin today and fall away, or I can lose my faith today and believe again tomorrow, for I can just get saved all over again tomorrow and the next day and the next day. and your faith is in yourself, I can get saved again tomorrow, "I CAN GET" but OSAS camp says "GOD CAN KEEP ME SAVED" so you be the Judge, which one's faith is in God. God can save someone no matter how wretched they are. we all believe this and it is true, But who's God can keep them saved?? or How much faith do we have in God, if we now believe that we have to keep ourselves saved, once we have trusted in Him! and have we trusted in Him, if the Promise of eternal life is not eternal?? And How much Blood does Jesus have to use on one person, I believe once the blood is applied, that cleansing Blood of the Lamb, that can wash away my sin is applied, then that covers, ALL MY SIN!! not just my past sin!! If you believe you can fall away, for your sins (present sin and your future sin) can wash away the Blood, and you have to go to Jesus and get more Blood, then how much of that precious BLood can one person waste?( Lord. please see that this is a question not a statement saying that your precious Blood can be wasted,) well now at this point you will say I am not saying that I can fall away from by sinning , but rather I can walk away from the Love of God , the love that no man nor power can separate us from, I am stronger than this love and I can walk away from this love and lose my faith and lose my salvation:

Romans 14:22-23
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
KJV

If you doubt eternal life, is eternal life, then you have damned yourself, because you couldn't swallow the Word of God. if Paul is teaching one can fall away into eternal damnation in verses 12-14 as you have intrepreted so why would he in the same thought process/in the same preaching say:

Romans 8:37-39
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
KJV

If Paul is preaching of a spiritual death in verse 12-13, would he not also be speaking of a spiritual death in verse 37, and even that can't separate us from the love of God. NO!! rather in both places Paul is Preaching of a physical death. rightly divide!!


I have conquered the wages of sin through My Lord and Saviour, that loved me and I Have been given eternal Life through Him that died for me, Believeth thou This?? yea, Lord I believeth this!!

Romans 8:32
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?


Thank You Lord, for your promise of eternal life Through Jesus Christ, and thank You Lord for not allowing it to be up to me, to fulfill this promise,
but faith in a God that doesn't lie, or break his Covenants, A God that nothing is too hard for, even keeping a sinner saved by grace saved. Praise the Lord. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen


rightly divide, or we may open up a can of worms that we can't close!!!!

 

[faceofbear]

I'm not even going to respond because your allegations and taking verses out of context is absolutely ridiculous. I've never seen someone clearly take verses out of context to mean something else entirely. But if death is all that is threatened, then I guess we have nothing to fear. For death is gain. Merry Christmas.

 

[faceofbear]

Oh wait nevermind. I've seen Joel Osteen do what you did. Sorry.

 

[His_disciple3]

I'm not even going to respond because your allegations and taking verses out of context is absolutely ridiculous. I've never seen someone clearly take verses out of context to mean something else entirely. But if death is all that is threatened, then I guess we have nothing to fear. For death is gain. Merry Christmas.

you not going to respond because you know death is not always a spiritual death , and brethren is not always the Christian brethren, and you can't prove any different so. from scriptures your doctrine no longer has a leg to stand on. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost is One God and This is the God of my Salvation. but since someone can keep themselves saved , they raise themself up as high as God and they make themself god of their salvation, they have never trusted God with their salvation because they have been mislead, even as they continue to mislead, that it is up to them to remain saved, their faith is in their works. if anyone had been able to save themselves, or even keep themselves saved, then Jesus Christ would not had to die! if your faith is in you then you have no Total faith in God. if it is not of faith , then it is sin, if we sin, not when we sin, but if we sin then:

1 John 2:1
2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
KJV



advocate


AD'VOCATE, n. [L. advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.] 3. One who defends, vindicates, or espouses a cause, by argument; one who is friendly to; as, an advocate for peace, or for the oppressed.
In scripture, Christ is called an advocate for his people.
We have an advocate with the father. 1John, 2.

Galatians 2:16-21
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
KJV

 

[Ron Wood]

Dean,

I really appreciate your input. You're very intelligent. But as this continues I am seeing a trend in that this whole discussion is a misunderstanding. That is, our issues aren't really with each other's beliefs but the semantics of them and that we seemingly are using different definitions to explain the same thing. It's solely semantic noise in our discussion preventing it from progress.



I agree, which is what I've been trying to say the whole time. Hence why I've been getting frustrated of DD and others trying to imply that I believe in free will and not the sovereignty of God.



Again. I agree. Any will of man is due to divine grace and God's allowance. Not by man's own will or man's own power. It is all of grace.



I disagree. It is modern professing Arminians who are pelagian that have lead Arminians astray. Similarly, we can call them "wolfs in sheeps clothes." They might say they are Arminian, but the question is, are they really Arminian if they departed from Arminius teachings?



Agreed. And it wasn't meant to be. Man's will was the END result of Arminius theology because Arminius STARTED with the love of God and made the love of God the main thing (as opposed to deterministic sovereignty).



I don't agree with this. From what I've read on Wesley, he seems on par with Arminius, and seemingly restored true Arminian theology from the liberalization that occurred through the Remonstrants. However, I would agree that Wesleyan churches, i.e. Methodist, are. But I won't argue because you probably know more than me, but historically, I believe, it is proven that Wesley brought true Arminian doctrine back from the liberalization of Limborch and Remonstrantism which lead to deism and Pelaganist teachings, which, don't even deserve to be called Arminian.

But I will give you that MANY "professing Arminians" have liberalized John Wesleys teachings to sound pelagian. I'll provide you some of Wesleys teachings (which you probably know) tomorrow. He seems far from teaching free will, and in fact, seems very close to a Calvinist which some have even called him a confused Calvinist.




The issue, I believe, is again, the confusion between remonstrantism and Classical Arminianism. True Arminianism doesn't teach that man co-operates with God.

God bless you Dean. And Merry Christmas Eve. May it remind us more of the miracle of the virgin birth of the Christ.

I am struggling hard to keep from responding in this thread. I may not be allowed here but I do keep up with you folks here. You entrenched yourselves into my heart too deep for it to be otherwise. Merry Christmas!