Good News, Really?

[Eddie L]

Christ said man rejects Him because he loves darkness and refuses to come into the light.

It's logical then to assume that men who don't love darkness accept God's offer of salvation and His grace and willingness to believe.

That's exactly right. The love of darkness is what we call "depravity". Man does "dark" kind of things because he loves darkness. This is where the disagreements start. We disagree on what causes a man who loves darkness to suddenly want the light.

Pelagian - Man has the capacity from birth to work righteousness or to sin. Grace is not necessary to initiate the change of a person's heart in order for them to seek after God or to grow as a believer afterward. Those who are obedient are rewarded with salvation.

Semi-Pelagian - Man has the capacity to seek God on his own without the assistance of grace, but God's grace helps a person who has come to Jesus to grow as a believer. Those who free themselves from their love of darkness and accept the gospel without divine assistance have qualified themselves for God's salvation.

REAL Arminian - In his natural state, man cannot seek after God because he loves the darkness rather than light. At some point in every person's life, the grace of God assists a person to a point where they can accept Jesus or reject Him. Those who choose to accept the gospel and continue in faith (with divine help) have met the critieria for God's salvation.

Calvinism - In his natural state, man cannot seek after God because he loves the darkness rather than the light. God sent Jesus to pay the debt for those the Holy Spirit would later free from the love of darkness so that they willingly follow Christ. Those who believe are those God is saving.

Fatalism - Who cares what the state of man is? It doesn't matter. God has set all the destinations regardless of what we do.

The debate between the Arminian and Calvinist tends to focus on the differences, which makes an Arminian sometimes sound a little too Pelagian and makes a Calvinist sound too fatalistic. Arminians aren't Pelagian, though, and Calvinists are not fatalists.

 

[Skala]

Christ said man rejects Him because he loves darkness and refuses to come into the light.

It's logical then to assume that men who don't love darkness accept God's offer of salvation and His grace and willingness to believe.

Indeed but the scripture plainly states that men hate the darkness rather than the light, and do not come to the light (christ) because their deeds are evil, lest their deeds be exposed.

A fallen man seeks God the way a criminal seeks a police officer.

 

[WordofHisPower]

That's exactly right. The love of darkness is what we call "depravity". Man does "dark" kind of things because he loves darkness. This is where the disagreements start. We disagree on what causes a man who loves darkness to suddenly want the light.

Pelagian - Man has the capacity from birth to work righteousness or to sin. Grace is not necessary to initiate the change of a person's heart in order for them to seek after God or to grow as a believer afterward. Those who are obedient are rewarded with salvation.

Semi-Pelagian - Man has the capacity to seek God on his own without the assistance of grace, but God's grace helps a person who has come to Jesus to grow as a believer. Those who free themselves from their love of darkness and accept the gospel without divine assistance have qualified themselves for God's salvation.

REAL Arminian - In his natural state, man cannot seek after God because he loves the darkness rather than light. At some point in every person's life, the grace of God moves a person to a point where they can accept Jesus or reject Him. Those who choose to accept the gospel and continue in faith (with divine help) have met the critieria for God's salvation.

Calvinism - In his natural state, man cannot seek after God because he loves the darkness rather than the light. God sent Jesus to pay the debt for those the Holy Spirit would later free from the love of darkness so that they willingly follow Christ. Those who believe are those God is saving.

Fatalism - Who cares what the state of man is? It doesn't matter. God has set all the destinations regardless of what we do.

The debate between the Arminian and Calvinist tends to focus on the differences, which makes an Arminian sometimes sound a little too Pelagian and makes a Calvinist sound too fatalistic. Arminians aren't Pelagian, though, and Calvinists are not fatalists.

Good point about fatalism and true arminianism. Where'd you get this info from?

I especially like this,
REAL Arminian - In his natural state, man cannot seek after God because he loves the darkness rather than light. At some point in every person's life, the grace of God moves a person to a point where they can accept Jesus or reject Him. Those who choose to accept the gospel and continue in faith (with divine help) have met the critieria for God's salvation.

 

[mandelduke]

I get confused and quite frankly walk away from philosophies wherein an individual, in this case Calvin, translates the good news to fit a certain criteria.

When God sent Jesus to take the worlds sin upon himself on the cross I believe that. I don't think it's fair to God or Jesus sacrifice for mortal men whom are the sinners God sought to save, purport to deliver an interpretation of God's words that claims God only meant that salvation to include a few.
That's not good news at all.

You are so right, it breaks my heart to see after what Jesus did for mankind, all mankind has done is tread one task master for another.

 

[Eddie L]

Good point about fatalism and true arminianism. Where'd you get this info from?

I just plopped it down from my brain, so it may contain some bias. I tried to be objective in my descriptions, though folks in the various camps might disagree, and they could even be right (as far as I know).

I especially like this,
REAL Arminian - In his natural state, man cannot seek after God because he loves the darkness rather than light. At some point in every person's life, the grace of God moves a person to a point where they can accept Jesus or reject Him. Those who choose to accept the gospel and continue in faith (with divine help) have met the critieria for God's salvation.

I personally am offended by semi-pelagianism and pelagianism, so I have to walk carefully in discussions with them, lest my patience run out and I am a poor witness. I do respect, however, the fact that true arminians try to deal with the Biblical reality of depravity and original sin. I don't agree with them (I'm a Calvinist), but a level headed Arminian and a level headed Calvinist should be able to discuss rationally and legitimately express each other's POV.

The heat in the disagreement comes when people respond emotionally to their conclusions about what the other believes. Calvinists are very concerned about removing any bragging rights from people because we want God to be fully credited for the efforts He has made to save each of us. Arminians are very concerned about the issue of every person not having what they consider to be a "fair" opportunity to accept the gospel. Because of these often emotional concerns, the debate often gets ugly.

With all the traffic on this forum over the last several weeks, I found myself changing my style a bit and getting fairly cranky myself, so I'm not immune to the emotions, either.

 

[WordofHisPower]

I just plopped it down from my brain, so it may contain some bias. I tried to be objective in my descriptions, though folks in the various camps might disagree, and they could even be right (as far as I know).

I personally am offended by semi-pelagianism and pelagianism, so I have to walk carefully in discussions with them, lest my patience run out and I am a poor witness. I do respect, however, the fact that true arminians try to deal with the Biblical reality of depravity and original sin. I don't agree with them (I'm a Calvinist), but a level headed Arminian and a level headed Calvinist should be able to discuss rationally and legitimately express each other's POV.

The heat in the disagreement comes when people respond emotionally to their conclusions about what the other believes. Calvinists are very concerned about removing any bragging rights from people because we want God to be fully credited for the efforts He has made to save each of us. Arminians are very concerned about the issue of every person not having what they consider to be a "fair" opportunity to accept the gospel. Because of these often emotional concerns, the debate often gets ugly.

With all the traffic on this forum over the last several weeks, I found myself changing my style a bit and getting fairly cranky myself, so I'm not immune to the emotions, either.

The REAL arminian position makes the most sense to me - In his natural state, man cannot seek after God because he loves the darkness rather than light. At some point in every person's life, the grace of God moves a person to a point where they can accept Jesus or reject Him. Those who choose to accept the gospel and continue in faith (with divine help) have met the criteria for God's salvation.

I've heard many testimonies of those who had the grace of God come on them multiple times to accept Christ and kept resisting. Some eventually heard God tell them "this is the last time", they repented, and accepted Christ. Others heard this was their last chance after multiple chances and still rejected.

I accepted Christ the first time His grace came upon me, as did most of my friends, but some of my friends had several chances before they finally accepted.

Aren't calvinists concerned about everyone getting a fair chance to accept or reject Christ? What if it's their child or parent or spouse? Isn't this issue more important than pride?

God resists the proud and knows each man's heart, so a prideful person wouldn't be the kind to accept God's salvation anyway.

 

[janxharris]

What you need to understand is that the reason the non-elect don't respond positively to the gospel is not because God doesn't extend them the inward call, but because of their sin.

How can you say this? The ONLY difference between the elect and non-elected in this is regeneration.

The so called "inward call" is simply God giving grace that we don't deserve to help anyone at all respond to the gospel.

Not anyone. The elect.

 

[janxharris]

Predestination puts nobody in hell. Sin does.

Predestination is God active movement to mercifully save people who would have ended up in hell otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Which is unfair.

 

[Skala]

How can you say this? The ONLY difference between the elect and non-elected in this is regeneration.

Yes, in Calvinsm, the only difference between those in heaven and those in hell is grace.

What is the difference in your view? It can't be grace since God gives grace to all equally. Thus what made those in heaven differ from those in hell must be something in the men themselves. Some righteous quality that they can boast about.

 

[Skala]

Which is unfair.

So giving grace to some and not others is unfair? Since when is grace obligatory? Obligatory grace is no longer grace. It destroys the meaning of the word. Grace by definition is unowed, unearned, voluntarily given.

This just proves that in your view, you demand grace from God or else you claim he is unjust.

Which really makes me question whether you understand grace to begin with.

Every Christian knows that God should have left him in his sins to perish into hell for eternity.

Yet your boast is that God should have saved you, because if he didn't, he is unjust.

I fear for you.

 

[janxharris]

For two, any Calvinist knows that man makes a free will decision to accept and trust Christ as Saviour.

This is not free.

 

[janxharris]

It is because man chose to reject God.

...but Calvinism teaches that man is unable.

Your argumentation is likened to accusing a teacher for not mercifully extending a deadline to students who chose to not do their homework. It's not the teacher's lack of mercy that is to blame (for it is not owed or deserved to begin with it) but rather it is the fault of the students.

The teacher would be accused if he extends for some and not others without good reason.

 

[Skala]

This is not free.

Can you do more than make assertions? Just because you don't understand it or don't like it doesn't mean it's not a free, willing decision.

Do you think Calvinists believe people unwillingly believe in Jesus? Such a notion is absurd.

In fact, only in synergism/Libertarian-Freewillism is unwilling belief in Christ a possibility. LFW (Libert. free will) says that a person is able to choose contrary to their desires.

So will you be consistent and admit that it is your view, not mine, which allows for a person to unwillingly choose Jesus?

 

[janxharris]

The difference between the two is not about the question of why does man reject God. (they both agree on the same thing)

Instead, it is about the question of why does man accept God?

Arminianism logically results in that some men are just wiser or more righteous, thus are willing to do the spiritual good that others are not willing to do.

Calvinists say that God's grace effectively brings about willingness and belief.

So one theology credits man, the other credits God.

As has been stated many times, faith is not a work.

 

[Skala]

...but Calvinism teaches that man is unable.

So does your view. How many times are you going to conveniently forget that? Methinks you are just trolling at this point.

For the last time (hopefully) you and I have both affirmed that without God's help, men are unable. Quit pretending that it's only unique to my view.

The teacher would be accused if he extends for some and not others without good reason.

Irrelevant for this argument.

 

[janxharris]

Yes, in Calvinsm, the only difference between those in heaven and those in hell is grace.

What is the difference in your view? It can't be grace since God gives grace to all equally. Thus what made those in heaven differ from those in hell must be something in the men themselves. Some righteous quality that they can boast about.

Faith.

 

[guuila]

As has been stated many times, faith is not a work.

You can keep saying that over and over and over, but your faith is what distinguished you from all those other sinners who will be lost forever. Too bad they weren't as humble as you. Good job!

If I believe God gave me my faith, and I thank him for it, am I giving him too much credit?

 

[guuila]

This is not free.

Prove to us this free will you speak of. If man can freely and autonomously make himself love something he hates by nature (Christ), which you're asserting, you should be able to prove it to us by making yourself like Calvinism for a week. Then after a week you should be able to easily go back to what you believe right now since you're autonomous over your own desires and heart. Go nuts buddy!

 

[guuila]

Predestination is God active movement to mercifully save people who would have ended up in hell otherwise.

Which is unfair.[/QUOTE]

You want fairness? Maybe God should throw you in hell right now. That's what you deserve. You don't want what's fair boss.

 

[janxharris]

What you need to understand is that the reason the non-elect don't respond positively to the gospel is not because God doesn't extend them the inward call, but because of their sin.

Your statement is an attempt to deflect criticism that God is unfair under your theology. It implies that regeneration is not required, but in your theology it is required. The elect sin just as the non-elect sin wouldn't you say? The elect, like the non-elect, continue not responding to the gospel. The only difference comes when one is regenerated.

If what you say is true, the the elect, who sin just as the non-elect sin, would reject the gospel too.

Do you still stand by your statement? If not, would you please offer another?