The Arminian View

[nobdysfool]

This.

Ummm...did you forget something?

 

[Skala]

I'm a 5 point Calvinist and would like to respond to the above poster.

Quote J.I. Packer -
"...the very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) in the form of five distinct points (a number due merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology." unquote.

You left out the rest of Packer's quote. he concludes: "For Calvinism there is only one point in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners.

The part in bold is the part you snipped from the quote. Tsk tsk. Notice the part in bold. Who does God save? Innocent people? No. Sinners. God saves sinners. Who is a sinner? A criminal that deserves hell because of their own actions.

Men are not condemned to hell based on nothing at all, with no reference to their sin. They are condemned to hell because it's what they deserve, it's what their sin deserves.

It seems like every time a non-Calvinist attacks Calvinism, they leave this important bit out. They always conveniently forget that everything is grounded upon men being sinners and deserving hell. They play the "emotion card" and they paint the picture of God sending innocent men to hell.

What Is Packer's Point?
Packer - quote " Though seldom, if ever stated in such blunt terms, that "one point" can be summarized as follows: A person will either be saved or damned for all eternity because they were saved or damned from all eternity. God is just as responsible (and responsible in the same way) for damning the sinners He damns as He is for saving the sinners He saves. " unqoute.

Do you have a source for this please?

1. Non- calvanists have a hard time understanding calvanists as some (hi-lighted in red) are 5 point only, others 4 point etc. I.E a lot of different positions within calvanism.

No there's not "a lot of different positions". All you did was show examples of two positions. Besides, this distinction misses the real issue. The debate is not so much between Arminianism and Calvinism as it is between monergism and synerigsm. Either God saves sinners by Himself, (monergism) or man and God cooperate to save the man. (Synergism) Calvinists are monergists.

2. Very early in this thread cindy stated in blunt terms the bottom line between calvanists and the rest. I.E If God predamns people as Packer above describes, Then how can God hold those people responsible for the sin that God himself caused (paraphrased).

They are predamned because in God's mind they are sinners. God "damns" them by choosing to not rescue them by grace. They are first and foremost sinners and God is not obligated to save them. In choosing to not save them, they are damned. Nobody receives injustice by God because all men deserve hell to begin with.

Also, see Acts 4:27-28 for God decreeing sin. If you have a problem with that, then your problem is with the plain words of the Bible, not any system of theology, such as Calvinism.

Its not a 'gothcha' question, a trick or anything else. It is the prime reason why Calvinists are in a lonely minority.

Christians are a lonely minority. I guess that makes them wrong, right? Oh wait, I guess truth isn't determined by popularity after all, but by the Bible alone. Calvinism is lifted right off the pages of the Bible. See the Synod of Dordt.

As we have seen on this thread, a lot of wriggling out of the question has been done which only backfires on those calvanists doing the wriggling.

You keep asserting this but I have seen no evidence of anyone "wriggling" out of anything. Which question exactly are you referring to that people refuse to answer? Bring it on? The Calvinists here are not scared to talk about anything. Where did you get the idea that they were?

Packer is a respected and well known author. He talks about predamination in his books hence this question is never going to go away.

That's fantastic. Care to talk bible now? Acts 13:48, John 6:44, Eph 1:4-11, 2 Thess 2:13. Let's talk about those.

Common myth
Perpetuated by some Calvinists as well by some Arminians is that if you are an Evangelical Christian and not a Calvinist you must be an Arminian, at the very least by default.

IN reality, this statement should be: If you are an Evangelical Christian and are not a Monergist, you must be a synergist, at the very least by default"

Also
Many people who call themselves moderate Calvinists will not identify with the Calvinists such as Packer above. In some cases it will be due to the fact that many people mistakenly call themselves Calvinists because they have bought into this notion that if you are not an Arminian you must be a Calvinist. Others simply interpret the Five Points in a non-Calvinistic way. Often it is a combination of both.

I identify with him. What now?

 

[Skala]

1. Fundamental Arminian doctrine. God is not the author of sin

What does "author of sin" mean exactly?

[according to Arminianism, God] never pre-damns anyone. No reprobates created by God.

This is ABSOLUTELY false. All Arminians agree that God knew from eternity past that if he created mankind many of them would end up in hell. Yet he went ahead and created them anyways.

Arminians simply don't have an answer to this dilemma, though they are faced with it.

 

[Hentenza]

Closing this for staff review.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread has undergone a thread clean up.

Folks, when someone is posting stuff they should not, please just report it - do not quote and respond to it. It just makes more clean up when you quote that person and post to them.

Reopening this...
​

 

[Pinkman]

They are predamned because in God's mind they are sinners. God "damns" them by choosing to not rescue them by grace. They are first and foremost sinners and God is not obligated to save them. In choosing to not save them, they are damned. Nobody receives injustice by God because all men deserve hell to begin with.

Also, see Acts 4:27-28 for God decreeing sin.

Has this thread been reopened ?

 

[Super Kal]

i would consider myself an Arminian, so I'll answer these to the best oif my ability:

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?

respond to God's grace by confession, repentance, turn away from his sin, and strive to live a holy life

What must God do, if anything?
What must Christ do, if anything?
What must the Holy Ghost do, if anything?

these three are one... but that's besides the point...
God has already done His part. It always starts with His grace, and never with man. Man is depraved and cannot save himself by his own actions

In what order must these things happen?

the grace of God comes first.

i see a pattern here... I'll just go ahead and say it.
Classical Arminianism is not Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian. Classical Arminianism affirms that God's grace must come first before man can start to come to God. Man cannot seek God without the grace of God

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?

i believe God gives man everyone the chance to believe based on their faith... and yes, I do believe God treats everyone equally... He has to treat everyone equally, for if He did treat sinners unequally, God would be showing more partiality to one over another... the Bible says partiality is a sin. God cannot show partiality to anyone. The Jew is not higher than the Gentile, nor the Gentile higher than the Jew. Romans 3 explicitly says no one is righteous before God, and no one has an advantage over God simply because they are Jew or Gentile

 

[Skala]

i believe God gives man everyone the chance to believe based on their faith... and yes, I do believe God treats everyone equally... He has to treat everyone equally, for if He did treat sinners unequally, God would be showing more partiality to one over another... the Bible says partiality is a sin. God cannot show partiality to anyone. The Jew is not higher than the Gentile, nor the Gentile higher than the Jew. Romans 3 explicitly says no one is righteous before God, and no one has an advantage over God simply because they are Jew or Gentile

Did God treat the OT pagan nations equally with Israel? Or did he leave them in complete darkness and ignorance, never revealing Himself to them or giving them blessings in the form of prophets and the sacrifices?

Does God treat everyone today equally considering that millions of people live and die without ever hearing the name of Christ much less a fully accurate gospel presentation and discipling? Is God treating those pagans who live in the jungle who have no idea about the gospel the same as he's treating, say, american middle classed people who are around the gospel message all the time and are even raised by Christian families and have a church on every corner? Some are born into the world in poverty and sickness, others wealth and comfort, etc.

Surely you don't truly believe that God treats everyone equally, not even materialistically, and certainly not spiritually.

such a notion does not line up against the scripture not the de facto state of God's own creation.

"You only have I known among all the families of the earth.." - Amos 3:2, God to Israel

Tell an OT Israelite that God loves them just as much as he loves the pagan nations whom they were commanded to conquer and kill and destroy and take their land, and they would laugh in your face and think you're crazy.

 

[Pinkman]

"God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1
Timothy 2:3, 4.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must,
most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All
men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant
some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of
men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means
all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was
very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the
exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical
gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have
been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a
knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have
been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are
more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow
me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for
inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be
inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with
myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent
with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the
forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So
runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth."

Salvation by Knowing the Truth

 

[Super Kal]

Did God treat the OT pagan nations equally with Israel? Or did he leave them in complete darkness and ignorance, never revealing Himself to them or giving them blessings in the form of prophets and the sacrifices?

Does God treat everyone today equally considering that millions of people live and die without ever hearing the name of Christ much less a fully accurate gospel presentation and discipling? Is God treating those pagans who live in the jungle who have no idea about the gospel the same as he's treating, say, american middle classed people who are around the gospel message all the time and are even raised by Christian families and have a church on every corner? Some are born into the world in poverty and sickness, others wealth and comfort, etc.

Surely you don't truly believe that God treats everyone equally, not even materialistically, and certainly not spiritually.

such a notion does not line up against the scripture not the de facto state of God's own creation.

"You only have I known among all the families of the earth.." - Amos 3:2, God to Israel

Tell an OT Israelite that God loves them just as much as he loves the pagan nations whom they were commanded to conquer and kill and destroy and take their land, and they would laugh in your face and think you're crazy.

concerning those who dont know, they do know through nature. it's in their conscious, and their conscious bears witness.
no one has the excuse to say "i never knew"... as Romans 2:11-15 says. there is no respect of persons with God

 

[Skala]

concerning those who dont know, they do know through nature. it's in their conscious, and their conscious bears witness.
no one has the excuse to say "i never knew"... as Romans 2:11-15 says. there is no respect of persons with God

General revelation is different from special revelation.

The former isn't sufficient for salvation, only for condemnation.

In short you didn't' really address the issue. Why does God withhold saving knowledge from billions of humans? My theology has an answer, does yours?

 

[Super Kal]

General revelation is different from special revelation.

The former isn't sufficient for salvation, only for condemnation.

In short you didn't' really address the issue. Why does God withhold saving knowledge from billions of humans? My theology has an answer, does yours?

where is this "general revelation" and "special revelation" explained in the Bible?

remember, God does not want all to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)
my belief is that God responds to the person's faith.
Some people will repent, other wont. It's not because God doesn't have the power to change them... it's because God still gives us the choice to repent or not... and it's not because God made them that way. They chose to go that way. and God will punish those for their choices.

 

[Skala]

Brother, they are doctrines that are formed based on the implications of the Bible, such as the doctrine of the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity is not explained in a single, clear cut passage, but is formed by various things the Bible says.

General and Special revelation are doctrines that theologians have coined to refer to different revelations from God.

General revelation is the creation itself, as Paul says, it is evidence that God exists so that men are without excuse regarding His power and existance.

But as we know from the Bible, that is not sufficient for salvation. The gospel message (special revelation) is what is necessary for salvation. One needs knowledge of Christ crucified, sin, redemption, repentance, etc. Not merely knowledge that God exists. Many religions in the world (and the demons believe, too) believe that "a god exists" but that's not sufficient for salvation. The gospel message is.

That is what I was getting at

 

[cygnusx1]

General revelation is different from special revelation.

The former isn't sufficient for salvation, only for condemnation.

In short you didn't' really address the issue. Why does God withhold saving knowledge from billions of humans? My theology has an answer, does yours?

how are we to uphold and balance those texts that say God isn't willing that any perish with those many reprobation passages ? surely it is simply God's reluctance to punish that is in view not His decree or plan...