The Arminian View

msortwell said:

As stated by another, your position seems to deny the impact of original sin upon all the descendents of Adam. Your view seems as though it might best align with what has been labeled Semipelagianism or Pelagianism. It would be worth your time to take a look into what those schools of thought teach and if they align with your views - and take the time to look and the broader implications of the two views.

Click to expand...

I doubt if all Arminians believe in your concept of "orginal sin". As far as what groups believe, I only can what the Holy Spirit wants me to believe and do at this time.

4. But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles? -- for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural. The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;" that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;" -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath;" that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created. And hence, when "the Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, he saw they were all gone out of the way; they were altogether become abominable, there was none righteous, no, not one," none that truly sought after God: Just agreeable this, to what is declared by the Holy Ghost in the words above recited, "God saw," when he looked down from heaven before, "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth;" so great, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."


... all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still. -- John Wesley

No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;[42] both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.[43] -- Wikipedia

Skala said:

Yes my friend, all have sinned because they are born into Adam's race. In other words, you don't become a sinner by sinning, but the reason people sin is because they are sinners.

David tells us that he was born into sin and conceived in iniquity. He's not a special case.

You don't have to teach a child how to lie, cheat, steal, disobey parents, violently hit his playmates, be selfish, etc. They innately know how to do that. That proves that mankind is sinful by nature. The fact that they don't have to be shown how to do that, but that they know how to do it by nature, proves that they are sinners and that is why they sin.

Humans are born into a fallen race. Adam was their representative. Adam brought sin, guilt and condemnation upon his entire posterity. Paul is clear in Romans 5 that men die because they are guilty in Adam, not merely because they are guilty for their own sins (though that is true, too). Adam represents his people in the way Christ represents His people. Christ is considered, by the Apostle Paul, a type of Adam. (and vice versa)

That means what Adam did affected me, but what Christ did affected me to. If you deny original sin that means you deny Paul's argument that Christ is a type of Adam, which means you deny that both parties (Adam and Christ) act as federal heads for the people they represent.

If you deny Adam as your federal head, then to be consistent you must deny Christ as your federal head, too. In short, if you deny original sin you also deny the very doctrine of salvation itself!

Click to expand...

You are taking the Poetic wording of David to be ultra-literal. Read Psalms 51, David is not trying to shift the fault from himself to the fact he was “born that way”. David is trying to confess how really bad he is.

If you have to be literal: Psalms 51:5 could also refer to David’s mother being sinful (the second wife of Jesse, which appears to have been a concubine to an Ammonite which would defile her).

Another literal alternative that I copied from David Ray Fanning I : “sinful,” meaning “ceremonially defiled” (it is possible that David was “ceremonially defiled” due to the sin of his ancestor Judah who conceived Perez through his daughter-in-law, Gen. 38:15-18, 27-30. Deuteronomy 23:2 states, “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation.” Assuming no genealogy gaps, David would be the tenth generation of Perez, Matthew 1:3-6); 4) “sinful,” figuratively characterizing David’s whole life (referring to David’s sins, not his parents. Compare the same figurative language in Job 31:18: Job says “from his youth” he reared the fatherless and “from his mother’s womb” he guided the widow whose eyes were failing (meaning, Job’s whole life, relatively speaking, can be summarized as helping the needy. Job could not literally guide a blind widow from his mother’s womb any more than a child conceived in the womb could sin, inherit sin.

There are plenty of verses that describe sin as something you do and a baby cannot do these things.

Humans are born self centered for good reason (it is part of our survival instinct), but they are not held “accountable” for these mistakes until they are mature enough, so they are not sin. James 1:14-15 states, “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his OWN desires…when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death”

Everyone is responsible/accountable for his own personal sins (Ezekiel 18:20 states that children do not bear the iniquity/guilt of their parents). Children are pure, innocent and without sin (Isaiah 7:14-16; Matthew 18:2-4; 19:13-15; Mark 9:36; 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; Romans 9:10-12; I Corinthians 14:20)

We are not born into a “neutral” world since satan is around, but he cannot force us to do that which we do not allow him to do.

Yes, God has arranged everything so we will transgress, but it is still our transgression and not God forcing us to sin. We all sin, but that helps us fulfill our purpose and in that respect sin has purpose, but is never desired. Adam was our best representative and showed us and them why we need to die and leave this world to inherit our better life (in this way death is not bad, but our way to go home). Yes, I am positively affected by Adam but he only helps me by showing why the Garden method would not work and sets in motion a system that would work (this included sin), but the Law is needed (one written on our hearts or on stone), Christ going to the cross and the indwelling Holy Spirit.


God is both “just” and fair and the Bible pretty much defines just/unjust behavior and what is fair. So would sending an innocent (has personally not done anything wrong) baby to hell be fair behavior. Is it just to punish an innocent person for the transgressions of another?

1) David's writing style doesn't make what he says any less true. If he's conceived in sin, he's conceived in sin.

2) Quoting Bible verses that teach that each man is responsible for his own personal sins does not disprove anything (because everyone who believes in Original Sin believes that, too!) And your'e isolating Ezek 18:20 way out of context!;

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Misuse of Ezekiel 18, especially Ezekiel 18:20

Further, the verse has nothing to do with federal headship, but is simply affirming what we all already believe: that man is responsible for his own personal sins. But that fact does not undo the teaching that we are born as sinners because of Adam and thus commit personal sins. There is nothing contradictory here and there is nothing that disproves Original Sin.

It does no good to pit scripture against scripture as if Romans 5 is suddenly untrue because you quoted Ezek 18. The two are not at odds.

I noticed you didn't actually deal with Romans 5, but you ran off to a bunch of other verses that are less clear on the matter and don't teach anything absolutely. You can't toss out the ultra clear Romans 5 in favor of other more ambiguous texts that aren't a detailed explanation of sin, the way Romans 5 is.

Paul is clear that men died between Adam and Moses, before they had received the law (it came through Moses), and since sin is not counted when there is no law (to be guilty of breaking), the fact that they experienced death (the wages of sin) proves that they were guilty for being in Adam, not just their own personal sins (for sin is not counted when there is no law, and the law had not come yet!) That's Paul's argument.

Also you didn't respond to the fact that Paul says Adam is a type of Christ. If what Adam did didn't affect you, bling, how is it that what Christ did affected you? The two are both representatives of you! you cannot take the one and ignore the other, that is inconsistent and flies in the face of Paul's argument in Romans 5.

So would sending an innocent (has personally not done anything wrong) baby to hell be fair behavior.

Click to expand...

According to the Bible nobody is innocent. Using a baby as an example is simply an appeal to emotion and ignores the greater underlying issues.

Is it just to punish an innocent person for the transgressions of another?

Click to expand...

Um, that's exactly what God did to Jesus. On our behalf. Remember?

Romans 5 for your reading pleasure


Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

JohnCalvinNot said:

Why then pick fights with orthodox or arminians which is what this thread is all about.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

msortwell, you ask questions, a series of questions, to Arminians and then answer your own questions with your biased view of those who believe Wesleyan doctrine Arminian theology..........hmmmmm.

msortwell said:

O.K., I'll offer up the following - A Calvinist's understanding of the Arminian View

From the Arminian perspective . . .

What must happen for a man to change (or be changed) from the unsaved condition to a saved condition?
That is, what must the man do, if anything?

A man must trust that the gospel is true . . . that Christ died for his sins, that He was buried, and that He rose on the 3rd day . . . all according to the Scriptures.

What must God do, if anything?

God must, consistent with His own promise, by grace, through faith, impute the Man's sins to Christ, and Christ's righteousness to the man.

What must Christ do, if anything?

Christ accomplished what was required of Him on the cross. He has no additional work to accomplish to save the man.

What must the Holy Ghost do, if anything?

The Holy Ghost must work upon the heart of the man to enable the man to trust in the truth of the gospel and therefore look to Christ for salvation.

In what order must these things happen?

God performed His active part prior to the creation of the world when He did determine how sinful men would be reconciled to Himself through the sacrifice of His Son and the work of the Holy Ghost.

Again, Christ accomplished what was required of Him on the cross. He has no additional work to accomplish to save the man - having agreed before the foundation of the world how sinful men would be reconciled to God.

The Holy Ghost, in agreement with Father and Son since before the foundation of the world, moves actively in the heart of the man at the time(s) determined by God the Father.

Do God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost treat all unsaved men equally? That is, does God's justice REQUIRE Him to afford every man that was ever born the exact same chance to be saved?

No.


ARMINIANS . . . HOW DID I DO? HAVE I CORRECTLY REPRESENTED YOUR VIEWS? FEEL FREE TO MAKE CORRECTIONS AS NECESSARY!

Click to expand...

So, okay, I will enter into this discussion and bring it back to where you intended for it to go per your statements. AND, I believe you have a hidden agenda, that up front.

What must happen for a man to change (or be changed) from the unsaved condition to a saved condition?

A man must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth that Jesus is, and did, what He said, and why.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

That is, what must the man do, if anything?

Accept Jesus' substitutional sacrifice on our behalf, with all that it involves. One must count the cost of accepting and following Jesus.

What must God do, if anything?

Nothing, it has already been done.

What must Christ do, if anything?

Nothing, it has already been done.

What must the Holy Ghost do, if anything?

Bring conviction upon the heart of the man. From that point forward, the man must make a decision to accept or reject that conviction and all that it involves.

In what order must these things happen?

God's part, Jesus part are already done. That leaves conviction from the Holy Spirit whispering in the man's core being to open our eyes so that we can see Jesus lifted up for our sin sacrifice. Once we see Jesus, He draws us to Himself. It is up to us to either submit, surrender and accept His sacrifice on our behalf, or reject it.

Do God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost treat all unsaved men equally?

John 15:22
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin."

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

That is, does God's justice REQUIRE Him to afford every man that was ever born the exact same chance to be saved?

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

ARMINIANS . . . HOW DID I DO? HAVE I CORRECTLY REPRESENTED YOUR VIEWS? FEEL FREE TO MAKE CORRECTIONS AS NECESSARY!

You did very well at spinning your view of what you project upon Christians that believe Wesleyan Arminianism from a Calvinistic view. No, you have not. You left a great amount of theology out of your tainted view of our faith.

I feel compelled to point out that Christians, whether we are of Calvin or Arminius, are OF CHRIST JESUS. WE BOTH present Christ crucified in our place for our sins. WE BOTH present Jesus as the ONLY way to salvation by grace through faith. Not works based, but free loving gift of our Creator-GOD that none of us deserve. WE BOTH present Jesus resurrected from the dead as a guarantee to us that we too shall be raised from the dead in Him.

Where we have major difference is in definitions of ALL, predestined, and ELECT; in running a good race to the finish; in enduring until the end; in not falling away from the faith. Satan, not GOD, uses those misunderstandings of GOD to make sure that we spend time arguing and debating these things instead of loving, accepting and forgiving those lost whom GOD draws to HIMSELF, that GOD brings across our paths, that they might be saved by Christ Jesus our LORD because they see Jesus in us. We are merely the water vessels. Jesus is the living water. In order that He draw all men to Himself, the vessels must allow others to see HIM in the us.

You Calvinists restrict GOD's drawing to only the ELECT, while we Arminians do not care whether the unsaved are ELECT or just sinners like the rest of us. We share Jesus with anyone and everyone, not just the ELECT.

Be blessed,
Lee52

PS
Oh, and another area in which we disagree; sanctification of the believer. We believe that as we submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit, HE sets us aside from the world. My understanding of Calvinists is that you all already are set aside, humbly of course..........

Hi All

I have asked this question before as I believe it gets to the absolute root of this debate.

God's Sovereignty vs Mans guilt/responsibility.

If God elects some to salvation but elects/passes over others for damnation. How can God hold them responsible for what God himself did ?

Arminian type thought is opposed to this terrible decree of J Calvin.

Every calvinist I have ever met always evades this question. It is not a trick question. This is the fundamental divide ever since Augustin wrote his 'retractions' in the 5th century.

Cindy161 said:

If God elects some to salvation but elects/passes over others for damnation. How can God hold them responsible for what God himself did ?

Click to expand...

For one thing, the question is flawed, because the second part of it asks, "How can God hold them responsible for what God Himself did?"

What, praytell, did God do, in that instance?

God does not hold anyone responsible to save themselves. He holds them responsible for their sins, as He has every right to do. God allowed mankind to corrupt itself, but that doesn't absolve mankind from their obligation to God as His created beings, to obey Him, and to be perfect and sinless before Him.

If He chooses to show mercy on some, He does no injustice to those who He does not show mercy to, any more than a Governor is unjust if he pardons one prisoner, while leaving the rest incarcerated. God is Sovereign, we are not.

Your question holds as an underlying premise that God cannot show mercy to some without making it available to all. The premise is flawed, and I have explained why.

God allowed mankind to corrupt itself

oops

God allowed mankind to corrupt itself

But I though you calvanist said we are all born sinners. Totally depraved. Unable to to even know of God as it says in the Canons of Dort.

nobdyfool

If you could expand on that I believe you would help a lot of people on this and other forums. I have been thinking about that "God allowed mankind to corrupt itself" statement.

I am struggling to square it in a non arminian sense. Imagine a play ground full of kids. They are born into a world that God has cursed. Gen 3 is plain on that. A fight starts out and an ak47 that is left around gets used and a 3 year old dies (btw- happens quite a lot). Is that 3 year old condemned because he/she is of Adam ? Even breathing being a sin as one person mentioned.

God foreknew the result and allowed it to happen. I.E Permissive will not decretive will.
Do we agree on that ?

Not created corrupt but allowed man to corrupt himself. Is that not man going his own way which has been expound by a lot of non-calvinists on this forum.

I also do not understand your statement about the obligation to be 'perfect and sinless' if we are all born tainted by Adam.

Please could you talk more. It would be hugely beneficial to enlarge on what you posted.

For starters, please remove your post to me in the "...Answer Arminian Arguments" thread. It is offensive, rude, and completely false. You know which post I'm talking about....

As for the rest, it will be later today, as I have much to do, and won't be around a computer until later.

NobdyFool

I did NOT allege that you personally posted that. The 'You' being Calvinists and as you can see from that post I have cut and pasted Behe Boy's post.

Originally Posted by Behe's Boy
What I can't fathom is going to a playground with a bunch of kids who are ALL a bunch of murderors, liars, thiefs, adulterors, idolaters, fornicators, horrendous sinners, and giving them anything good at all - let alone grace.

Further back or on another forum somebody posted "even breathing oxygen is a sin..". I have not the time to go back to cut and paste it.

I assume that you both being calvanists you are both in agreement. Please correct if that assumption is wrong. I have assumed you Calvinists on these forums are speaking with one voice. If not nobdysfool PLEASE elaborate your understanding.

Particularly your understanding as you have been brave enough to answer the crunch question above.

I sincerely hope you do as as this could be a breakthrough.

Yours in Christ

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine
Article 3: Total Inability
Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

Sorry pressed wrong button.

Copied from The Canons of Dort

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine
Article 3: Total Inability
Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

This I believe is the Calvinist position. The all even including 3 year old toddlers for instance. All meaning ALL. Please correct if wrong.

All have not chose to be sinners. Conceived and born that way.

I cannot understand this and also nobdysfool statement "God allowed mankind to corrupt itself". Personally I think nobdysfool is correct.

cindy161 said:

oops

God allowed mankind to corrupt itself

But I though you calvanist said we are all born sinners. Totally depraved. Unable to to even know of God as it says in the Canons of Dort.

Click to expand...

I tried to send you a PM, but I am blocked.
Be blessed my brother in Christ Jesus,
Lee52

cindy161 said:

Sorry pressed wrong button.

Copied from The Canons of Dort

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine
Article 3: Total Inability
Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

This I believe is the Calvinist position. The all even including 3 year old toddlers for instance. All meaning ALL. Please correct if wrong.

All have not chose to be sinners. Conceived and born that way.

I cannot understand this and also nobdysfool statement "God allowed mankind to corrupt itself". Personally I think nobdysfool is correct.

Click to expand...

I am an Arminian and I think this is correct as well.

Mans free will choice. E.g 'All have sinned and gone there own way'. Not pushed that way.

cindy161 said:

Hi All

I have asked this question before as I believe it gets to the absolute root of this debate.

God's Sovereignty vs Mans guilt/responsibility.

If God elects some to salvation but elects/passes over others for damnation. How can God hold them responsible for what God himself did ?

Arminian type thought is opposed to this terrible decree of J Calvin.

Every calvinist I have ever met always evades this question. It is not a trick question. This is the fundamental divide ever since Augustin wrote his 'retractions' in the 5th century.

Click to expand...

I have heard this debated a few times in college. Mostly the answers resolve around 'the clay is not allowed to ask the potter' this question. A few allude to the tree of knowledge, such that when a baby has an understanding of this, then the child is held responsible.

I feel for your situation. Specially for those little ones caught up in it through no fault of there own.

Blessings

Hi All

I have asked this question before as I believe it gets to the absolute root of this debate.

God's Sovereignty vs Mans guilt/responsibility.

If God elects some to salvation but elects/passes over others for damnation. How can God hold them responsible for what God himself did ?

Arminian type thought is opposed to this terrible decree of J Calvin.

Every calvinist I have ever met always evades this question. It is not a trick question. This is the fundamental divide ever since Augustin wrote his 'retractions' in the 5th century.

Click to expand...

Um, I've never seen a Calvinist evade the question.

If a teacher gives a student homework, and the student goes out and gets drunk, and is thus mentally unable to do the homework, the teacher is not being unjust for holding the student accountable for not being able to do his homework.

How, in that case, did the teacher "do anything." All the teacher did was what was right and just for the teacher to do: Demand homework to be done and hold them accountable/responsible for not doing it.

It's man's own fault for being fallen and being unable to be in a relationship with God.

Here's another analogy. You have a professor who is really lenient with his students. They quite often turn in their homework late, and the professor says "ok, I will accept your work late this time, but the rule is you need to turn it in on time".

Finally, a student turns his work in late, and the professor says sorry, I won't accept it.

Is the professor being unjust for simply doing what he has the right to do? It's the student', not the professor's fault.

God can, out of mercy, save some of them and not the rest, since he is not obligated to save any at all to begin with. Just as the professor is not obligated to allow the students to turn their work in late.

Besides, Paul answers your questions in Romans 9:

(19)You will say to me then, how can God hold us accountable since everything that happens is God's will anyways?"
(20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
(21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
(23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

Basically, God does what He wants to do, and owes no explanation to anybody.