Understanding Arminians (from a former arminian)

[Shulamite]

I believe you are mixing up "preordain" with "foreknowledge".

Yes, YHWH knows all actions from the beginning to the end. This is foreknowledge.

Has YHWH Himself ordered all actions from the beginning to the end? This is preordination.

As an Arminian, I completely agree that YHWH has total foreknowledge. However, I disagree that YHWH preordained everything. I believe He has given mankind free will to work for or against Him, to His ultimate glory. He knows how each man or woman will choose, but He did not preordain those actions.

Yes, YHWH hardened Pharaoh's heart, but He did not make Pharaoh choose any particular course of action. Isa 63:7 states that Isaiah is believing that YHWH is leading them astray. It does not state that YHWH is indeed leading them astray, nor does it obligate Isaiah to follow this stray path. Also, even if YHWH was indeed leading them astray, there is a purpose and reason - He tests our love for Him and His Torah (cf Deu 13:1-5). Finally, Prov 21:1 also states that YHWH can move one's heart; what it doesn't say is that He dictates a course of action.

Yes, YHWH can direct one's heart. It's up to our individual spirit to choose, however. For example, my heart can be filled with fear about riding a rollercoaster, but my spirit can overrule and ignore my heart and choose to continue on the ride.

No, I am not confused over foreknowledge or Preordaining things. I understand the difference. What I am saying is that BOTH are "two sides of the same coin". You cannot seperate them. If YOU authored a book and put it out on the market and YOU authored what those characters would DO, no one can change it. You are the author and without YOUR permission, no one can tell YOU to change the outcome. You authored it, you wrote it and there are copywright laws to protect that. God is the AUTHOR of man's story/history. No He knows all things in advance because He already WROTE (past-tense ordained) ALL things in advance.

Foreknowledge is merely knowing all things in advance. But, those things can only be known because they are already DONE.

 

[ananda]

No, I am not confused over foreknowledge or Preordaining things. I understand the difference. What I am saying is that BOTH are "two sides of the same coin". You cannot seperate them. If YOU authored a book and put it out on the market and YOU authored what those characters would DO, no one can change it. You are the author and without YOUR permission, no one can tell YOU to change the outcome. You authored it, you wrote it and there are copywright laws to protect that. God is the AUTHOR of man's story/history. No He knows all things in advance because He already WROTE (past-tense ordained) ALL things in advance.

Foreknowledge is merely knowing all things in advance. But, those things can only be known because they are already DONE.

Then that's our disagreement. I do not believe that YHWH wrote all things in advance.

Each of us as individuals in the stream of time are in the process of writing history as a result of the intertwining our of own individual wills. YHWH, by virtue of the fact that He is outside of time, has already seen the end of what we have all collectively "written" from the beginning.

Yes, YHWH does intervene in the timeline (e.g. events in Revelation), but He already knows how it all plays out as a result of His intervention. This is why He can provide us with the book of Revelation ahead of time. Not because He pre-ordained everyones' actions, but because of His supreme foreknowledge of how eternity interacts with our sphere of time.

So, in summary:
You (and other Calvinists?) believe: YHWH knows all things in advance because He wrote it all.
I believe: YHWH knows all things in advance because He is outside of time.

 

[Shulamite]

Then that's our disagreement. I do not believe that YHWH wrote all things in advance.

Each of us as individuals in the stream of time are in the process of writing history as a result of the intertwining our of own individual wills. YHWH, by virtue of the fact that He is outside of time, has already seen the end of what we have all collectively "written" from the beginning.

Yes, YHWH does intervene in the timeline (e.g. events in Revelation), but He already knows how it all plays out as a result of His intervention. This is why He can provide us with the book of Revelation ahead of time. Not because He pre-ordained everyones' actions, but because of His supreme foreknowledge of how eternity interacts with our sphere of time.

So, in summary:
You (and other Calvinists?) believe: YHWH knows all things in advance because He wrote it all.
I believe: YHWH knows all things in advance because He is outside of time.

With all respect, I do disagree and we will both have to respecfully disagree. I believe, based on God's own word, that He is the Author of Life. He didn't wait for us fallen humans to make our own individual history with our own sovereign wills and then base His decisions on that.

So, I believe I have made myself clear on where I stand? I cannot speak of what every Calvinist is persuaded of, but I believe I have made myself clear on what the Lord has convinced me of.

blessings

 

[ananda]

With all respect, I do disagree and we will both have to respecfully disagree. I believe, based on God's own word, that He is the Author of Life. He didn't wait for us fallen humans to make our own individual history with our own sovereign wills and then base His decisions on that. So, I believe I have made myself clear on where I stand? I cannot speak of what every Calvinist is persuaded of, but I believe I have made myself clear on what the Lord has convinced me of. blessings

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the debate

 

[Shulamite]

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the debate

You're welcome! Thank YOU for the conversation
As I was getting my lunch earlier I was thanking the Lord for such conversations as these. "Giving thanks for everything in Christ Jesus"

One thing is for sure: Whether Calvinist or Arminian, we both know that apart from Jesus, there is no Life or hope or salvation. He is our First Love and God in the flesh. I'm thankful for fellowship with brothers and sisters in Him.

 

[ananda]

You're welcome! Thank YOU for the conversation As I was getting my lunch earlier I was thanking the Lord for such conversations as these. "Giving thanks for everything in Christ Jesus" One thing is for sure: Whether Calvinist or Arminian, we both know that apart from Jesus, there is no Life or hope or salvation. He is our First Love and God in the flesh. I'm thankful for fellowship with brothers and sisters in Him.

Amein, amein!

 

[Skala]

Thank you Skala. I understand He works through means. Maybe you can show me how that applies to my questions. Below I give a scenario in which I would say God works through means. Is this what you meant?



Exactly, free-will choice is man's only means by which he decides to do anything. That which a man does not will, he will not do, unless coerced by an outside force. If you didn't use your free-will choice, you not only wouldn't believe in Calvinist doctrine, but you wouldn't believe in anything.



You know Skala, I have been on this board long enough to see Calvinist views. But I can't wrap my mind around it for the contradictions, various meaning of words, and ever-changing views of some Calvinists on here. One believes this, another believes the opposite.

If I ask if God causes evil, thus sin, I can guarantee not all Calvinists would agree with this. So, how am I to know who is presenting me the 'correct' Calvinist doctrine? Should I take your views as the 'correct' beliefs of Calvinism?

You should probably check a more authoritative reformed source on this, not some random people who "call themselves" Calvinists on discussion boards.

The standard reformed confessions of faith such as Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 and Westminster confession plainly state:

Of God's decree:

God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.
- Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature , nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

And free will:

9. Free Will

God has indued the will of man, by nature, with liberty and the power to choose and to act upon his choice. This free will is neither forced, nor destined by any necessity of nature to do good or evil.
Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but he was unstable, so that he might fall from this condition.
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to perform any of the spiritual good which accompanies salvation. As a natural man, he is altogether averse to spiritual good, and dead in sin. He is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself for conversion.
When God converts a sinner, and translates him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin, and by grace alone He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. But because of his remaining corruptions he does not only (or perfectly) will that which is good, but also wills that which is evil.
The will of man will only be made perfectly and immutably free to will good alone in the state of glory.

 

[Arcoe]

You should probably check a more authoritative reformed source on this, not some random people who "call themselves" Calvinists on discussion boards.

The standard reformed confessions of faith such as Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 and Westminster confession plainly state:

Of God's decree:

And free will:

Thank you Skala; however, if I do rely only upon these works, then am I free to interpret what they say?

Here is a quote you gave:

God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.

Here is my question about the above statement:

Which came first, God's decree from all eternity, of all things which shall ever come to pass,

or

God's foreknowledge of all things which shall ever come to pass?

Here is where I find a contradiction in the above statement. If God, from all eternity, has foreknowledge of ALL things that shall ever come to pass, why does He need to decree ALL things which shall ever come to pass?

Will not all things happen according to His foreknowledge without a decree? Does He have to 'step' into time to declare and make all things happen according to His foreknowledge?

So, if His foreknowledge came first, a decree is useless, for ALL things have already happened before Him, as His foreknowledge testifies.

If His decree came first, then His foreknowledge is limited and not all-knowing. So personally, I stay away from a decree from all eternity.

Do you see my dilemma in believing such a statement?

 

[gmm4j]

0% SHULA and 100% GOD.

This means you cease to exist.

By saying, “None of me,” you mean, “none of your old sinful nature” not that you cease to exist.

 

[Biblicist]

Having read the OP, I have to wonder if the poster has ever actually been an Arminian as what he is saying has nothing to do with Arminianism. Every Arminian knows (or should know) that an individual can only turn from their sin as a result of the activity of the Holy Spirit; the omission of the critical role of the Holy Spirit upon the unregenerate was noted and it seems to be a mere repeat of the strawman that Calvinism has constructed.

 

[Skala]

Thank you Skala; however, if I do rely only upon these works, then am I free to interpret what they say?

Here is a quote you gave:

God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.

Here is my question about the above statement:

Which came first, God's decree from all eternity, of all things which shall ever come to pass,

or

God's foreknowledge of all things which shall ever come to pass?

Here is where I find a contradiction in the above statement. If God, from all eternity, has foreknowledge of ALL things that shall ever come to pass, why does He need to decree ALL things which shall ever come to pass?

Will not all things happen according to His foreknowledge without a decree? Does He have to 'step' into time to declare and make all things happen according to His foreknowledge?

So, if His foreknowledge came first, a decree is useless, for ALL things have already happened before Him, as His foreknowledge testifies.

If His decree came first, then His foreknowledge is limited and not all-knowing. So personally, I stay away from a decree from all eternity.

Do you see my dilemma in believing such a statement?

Perhaps you are thinking wrongly by differentiating between God's knowledge and God's decree.

In my view, if God knows something, he knows it precisely because he has decreed it, as nothing can happen apart from him and nothing exists outside of him.

There is no such thing (literally impossible) as God "knowing about the future" without also decreeing said future.

Thus his knowledge of an event is derived from and predicated upon his decree of the event.

Since all things live and move and have their being in God, and God upholds the universe by the word of His power, that means nothing exists apart from or outside of God. Nothing is independent, but all things are dependent.

God, being Holy (which means "apart") is the only self sufficient, independent thing that exists. Everything else relies on Him and exists because of Him.

Sorry, I probably said the same thing in four different ways But I hope my rambling made sense lol.

The point is, the only possible way God "foreknows" the future is because it's going to happen by God's sovereign decree, purpose, and plan. Nothing happens independently from the God that upholds every atom of the universe.

 

[Shulamite]

Having read the OP, I have to wonder if the poster has ever actually been an Arminian as what he is saying has nothing to do with Arminianism. Every Arminian knows (or should know) that an individual can only turn from their sin as a result of the activity of the Holy Spirit; the omission of the critical role of the Holy Spirit upon the unregenerate was noted and it seems to be a mere repeat of the strawman that Calvinism has constructed.

No strawman intended. Simply put, I was giving a testimony of how I used to believe and see things(free will, etc) and then how the Lord changed my heart and showed me the truth of election and His Sovereignty in salvation. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Shulamite]

Perhaps you are thinking wrongly by differentiating between God's knowledge and God's decree.

In my view, if God knows something, he knows it precisely because he has decreed it, as nothing can happen apart from him and nothing exists outside of him.

There is no such thing (literally impossible) as God "knowing about the future" without also decreeing said future.

Thus his knowledge of an event is derived from and predicated upon his decree of the event.

Since all things live and move and have their being in God, and God upholds the universe by the word of His power, that means nothing exists apart from or outside of God. Nothing is independent, but all things are dependent.

God, being Holy (which means "apart") is the only self sufficient, independent thing that exists. Everything else relies on Him and exists because of Him.

Sorry, I probably said the same thing in four different ways But I hope my rambling made sense lol.

The point is, the only possible way God "foreknows" the future is because it's going to happen by God's sovereign decree, purpose, and plan. Nothing happens independently from the God that upholds every atom of the universe.

Amen. God knows the future because He's already decreed it to be so. It's as good as DONE. That which He foresees, He's also decreed and also done.

 

[Keachian]

I'm kinda worried about the equation of Freedom = loving.

How is it loving to leave man to his own devices? He is depraved totally opposed to God, what in himself will draw him to God

 

[Ignatius21]

I give all that I know, understand and have done to the Lord's working and willing IN me. 0% SHULA and 100% GOD.

Why, then, can it not be 100% God and 100% Shula?

Put another way...was Christ's work on earth 100% his divine nature, and 0% his human nature?

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm kinda worried about the equation of Freedom = loving.

How is it loving to leave man to his own devices? He is depraved totally opposed to God, what in himself will draw him to God

Yes it's a philosophical none sense to equate freedom - love or love = freedom .

The Lord has no trouble imposing loving gifts of rain and sunshine on humans without needing their permission.

 

[Shulamite]

Why, then, can it not be 100% God and 100% Shula?

Put another way...was Christ's work on earth 100% his divine nature, and 0% his human nature?

In all respect, Jesus even said that the words He spoke (the teachings) and the works He did were not His own, but His Father working in Him.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, "My teaching isn't Mine but is from the One who sent Me.

John 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

So, in your opinion, did Jesus claim 100% of anything? I see Jesus saying, "The Father is doing the works IN Me and when you've seen Me, you've actually seen and heard the Father".

What I am saying about myself is the same. Shula no longer lives. Christ lives IN me and it is HIM working and willing in me. If someone sees Jesus Character and works in my life personally, it's because it's JESUS living in me, not ME. I am a vessel of clay.

*side note* Jesus IS God....however, when He took on human flesh, He humbled Himself and took the form of a servant, giving all glory to the Father. He and the Father are ONE and the Son is the exact representation of His being, but Jesus took a position of humility in His days on earth as a man and gave all glory to the Father.

 

[ananda]

I'm kinda worried about the equation of Freedom = loving. How is it loving to leave man to his own devices? He is depraved totally opposed to God, what in himself will draw him to God

It is absolute love for YHWH to give man freedom while constantly appealing to his free-will to voluntarily turn to the goodness which YHWH provides. In the same way, it is love for me to lovingly guide my earthly child in righteous ways, while recognizing that he has the opportunity to reject my counsel at any time if he is willing to face the consequences.

It is not love to control all of man's actions by preordination, and then exacting eternal punishment on that man's spirit for committing actions which, by definition, did not originate from him in the first place. In the same way, I consider it hatred to enforce my power over my earthly child, determining his every movement, action, and thought, and then punishing him later for an action which I predetermined and commanded him to do.

Calvinism reduces man to a utter slave, in a misguided attempt at elevating YHWH's power & sovereignty.
Arminianism recognizes that man is YHWH's child & Messiah's spouse, by recognizing His eternal love.

 

[Ignatius21]

In all respect, Jesus even said that the words He spoke (the teachings) and the works He did were not His own, but His Father working in Him.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, "My teaching isn't Mine but is from the One who sent Me.

John 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Yes, he did indeed say these things. And these statements of his were cited by those who opposed the Chalcedonean understanding of Christ as one person in two natures, neither confused, nor mingled, nor increased nor diminshed. The Monophysites claimed various things, anywhere from him having one "super nature" to "his humanity being swallowed up in divinity as a drop of wine is swallowed by the sea" (or something along those lines...Eutychianism).

If we claim that Christ was essentially a human being indwelt by God, such that God the Father did all things and the humanity became just a passive entity, or (worse) a "wrapper" around the divinity, then we fall into heresies long ago condemned.

Thus we must accept that whatever Jesus did, was the work of the Father in him, and was also the work God the Son...and the work of God the son was both fully human and fully divine. We're in very mysterious waters here.

So, in your opinion, did Jesus claim 100% of anything? I see Jesus saying, "The Father is doing the works IN Me and when you've seen Me, you've actually seen and heard the Father".

We cannot oppose the work of God the Father to the work of God the Son. The work of God is Trinitarian, but the works do not add up to 300% (that would be essentially three Gods). Yet if they are distributed such that one Person does 50%, and the other two do 25% each (making that up), then really God has become composite, and each person is no longer fully God. This is why we cannot penetrate the mystery of God's essence. We can only affirm that (1) God is three perons, (2) God is one essence, and (3) all work together to do the work of God.

What I am saying about myself is the same. Shula no longer lives. Christ lives IN me and it is HIM working and willing in me. If someone sees Jesus Character and works in my life personally, it's because it's JESUS living in me, not ME. I am a vessel of clay.

You almost seem to be describing more of a possession than an indwelling. Yes, he lives and works in you. And you also live and work in him. The mystery of our salvation is the mystery of Incarnation. We work together with God, in Christ, through the Spirit (all three Persons work together to accomplish the work of God in us). We can't assign percentages to it. Every work done in Christ, is a work that is 100% human and 100% divine.

 

[Skala]

Calvinism reduces man to a utter slave, in a misguided attempt at elevating YHWH's power & sovereignty.
Arminianism recognizes that man is YHWH's child & Messiah's spouse, by recognizing His eternal love.

Unfortunately, only believers are God's children (by adoption) and spouse (only the church is the bride of Christ)

You are assigning roles to all humanity that are reserved for believers. Thus, you are incorrect.