Understanding Arminians (from a former arminian)

[Shulamite]

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.

I CAN agree with one sentence up above: Yes, we are His children and the church is Yeshua's spouse. Amen. (He's revealed Himself as my Bridegroom and what an amazing love it is and so personal).
However, I disagree that Calvinism makes God seem unloving and hateful by Sovereignly decreeing all things. I see this way: He changed me into a new creature. My new nature now desires His ways. He put His Spirit in me and moved me to desire His decrees. His children are born of Him, thereby are new creatures with new natures and it comes naturally to want to obey Him, we do not "feel" forced. His will becomes our desire by new nature.

 

[ananda]

I CAN agree with one sentence up above: Yes, we are His children and the church is Yeshua's spouse. Amen. (He's revealed Himself as my Bridegroom and what an amazing love it is and so personal).

Amein!

However, I disagree that Calvinism makes God seem unloving and hateful by Sovereignly decreeing all things. I see this way: God does not force me to do anything. He changed me into a new creature. My new nature now desires His ways. He put His Spirit in me and moved me to desire His decrees. His children are born of Him, thereby are new creatures with new natures and it comes naturally to want to obey Him, we do not "feel" forced. His will becomes our desire by new nature.

What about the men and women which YHWH decided to not change into a new creature?

 

[Shulamite]

Amein!

What about the men and women which YHWH decided to not change into a new creature?

Amen! He is quite the personal Bridegroom. When He began to show Himself to me this way (not just as Lord or Master/Teacher) I was amazed. He is so personal in His interactions and my testimony just on that would take ALL DAY! (but I wont' do that )

As far as men and women He decides NOT to change, then that is His decision to make. He must draw them to come to Christ and if the Father does not draw some, then they cannot come, and if they are not drawn and do not come, then they are not made new creatures in Christ. Yeshua has to "quicken" our spirit with His and when we are made One Spirit with Him, we will desire His heart's commands. That is why the lost have no desire for His will.

The elect desire God and His will only because we were made new creatures with His Spirit moving our hearts. Men and women who are not made new creatues in Christ, by His choosing, will NEVER care if they desire Him. The scriptures state that the wicked have no fear of God nor care about their sin.

 

[ananda]

As far as men and women He decides NOT to change, then that is His decision to make ...

and, according to Calvinistic theology, are those men or women punished after YHWH decided NOT to change them?

 

[Shulamite]

and, according to Calvinistic theology, are those men or women punished after YHWH decided NOT to change them?

According to the scriptures, men and women who are not chosen and elect remain in their "old nature"---unchanged by God. That old nature will be judged.

A thought came to mind a few minutes ago as I was pondering one of your statements about God being hateful and unloving because "He forces" us to be elect. I personally have 3 sons. I don't think any of my sons chose to be born to me. Imagine if my 3 boys said to me, "Mom, I think you are hateful and unloving because you didn't give me a choice to be born in this world. You gave birth to us, but didn't ask us first or give us the choice."
Hmmmm.... I don't think God, as our Heavenly Parent/Father is unloving or hateful because He did not give ME a choice to be born to Him. He chose to give birth to me and I wasn't around to make a choice. He is my Father and He chose my birth and I am grateful (eternally) that He did.

 

[ananda]

According to the scriptures, men and women who are not chosen and elect remain in their "old nature"---unchanged by God. That old nature will be judged.

I would then consider that unjust and unloving.

A thought came to mind a few minutes ago as I was pondering one of your statements about God being hateful and unloving because "He forces" us to be elect. I personally have 3 sons. I don't think any of my sons chose to be born to me. Imagine if my 3 boys said to me, "Mom, I think you are hateful and unloving because you didn't give me a choice to be born in this world. You gave birth to us, but didn't ask us first or give us the choice." Hmmmm.... I don't think God, as our Heavenly Parent/Father is unloving or hateful because He did not give ME a choice to be born to Him. He chose to give birth to me and I wasn't around to make a choice. He is my Father and He chose my birth and I am grateful (eternally) that He did.

The difference between your example and Calvinism is this:

Your earthly children can voluntarily disassociate themselves from your family. According to Calvinism, the men and women which YHWH chose cannot.

 

[Shulamite]

I would then consider that unjust and unloving.

The difference between your example and Calvinism is this:

Your earthly children can voluntarily disassociate themselves from your family. According to Calvinism, the men and women which YHWH chose cannot.

Jesus said, "If God is your Father, you would love Me."
That is pretty clear-cut. If you are born of God's Spirit, you will love Him. It's a new nature. Your desire to abandon the Lord will not be there. Sure, you will stumble/sin and even neglect Him at times due to your flesh, but your new spirit that is alive in Christ will never stop loving God or desire for Him to leave you.
Once my sons were born OF me, thier birth cannot be "undone". They are my sons in the flesh now and it's permenant. They can injure the fellowship I have with them, but no matter where they live on the planet or how far they distance themselves from me, it doesn't change the fact that they were BORN OF ME.

 

[ananda]

Jesus said, "If God is your Father, you would love Me." That is pretty clear-cut. If you are born of God's Spirit, you will love Him.

May I suggest an alternate translation of that verse:

"If YHWH were-continually(imperfect tense) your Father, you would continually(imperfect tense)-love Me."

Messiah is saying this: if man decides and continues to trust that YHWH was his Father, they would also continue to love His Son. But they have abandoned that trust, therefore they do not currently love His Son. (Note that the responsibility of loving Messiah is thrown upon man - "you would ...")

He was not saying that they could not love Him because YHWH did not choose them to be their Father.

 

[Shulamite]

May I suggest an alternate translation of that verse:

"If YHWH were-continually(imperfect tense) your Father, you would continually(imperfect tense)-love Me."

Messiah is saying this: if man decides and continues to trust that YHWH was his Father, they would also continue to love His Son. But they have abandoned that trust, therefore they do not currently love His Son. (Note that the responsibility of loving Messiah is thrown upon man - "you would ...")

He was not saying that they could not love Him because YHWH did not choose them to be their Father.

May I suggest that it was God who loved us FIRST and the only reason we love Him in return is because He initiated that love with us first. I believe a person who is NOT born of God's Spirit will want God for His benefits, but will not LOVE Him unconditionally (as Job did). Love is of God. God is Love. No where does it say that we can love God apart from God. Jesus said, "You can do nothing apart from Me." Being born of God means we will love Him.
I do not believe I can love Yeshua apart from Yeshua's Spirit working and willing in me. I would have never "seen" Him with the eyes of my heart unless He had opened them.

"Eyes that see and ears that hear, the Lord has made them both".

**I will be back later to enjoy this conversation. I have to head to work now*** until later and have a blessed day.

 

[elman]

I CAN agree with one sentence up above: Yes, we are His children and the church is Yeshua's spouse. Amen. (He's revealed Himself as my Bridegroom and what an amazing love it is and so personal).
However, I disagree that Calvinism makes God seem unloving and hateful by Sovereignly decreeing all things. I see this way: He changed me into a new creature. My new nature now desires His ways. He put His Spirit in me and moved me to desire His decrees. His children are born of Him, thereby are new creatures with new natures and it comes naturally to want to obey Him, we do not "feel" forced. His will becomes our desire by new nature.

Why just you? Why not everyone?

 

[ananda]

May I suggest that it was God who loved us FIRST and the only reason we love Him in return is because He initiated that love with us first. I believe a person who is NOT born of God's Spirit will want God for His benefits, but will not LOVE Him unconditionally (as Job did). Love is of God. God is Love. No where does it say that we can love God apart from God. Jesus said, "You can do nothing apart from Me." Being born of God means we will love Him.
I do not believe I can love Yeshua apart from Yeshua's Spirit working and willing in me. I would have never "seen" Him with the eyes of my heart unless He had opened them.

"Eyes that see and ears that hear, the Lord has made them both".

**I will be back later to enjoy this conversation. I have to head to work now*** until later and have a blessed day.

Undoubtedly, I agree with all you wrote here.

We love him, because he loved us first, as John wrote. However, it does not say that He loved only a select few.

Enjoy your work day!

 

[Skala]

Undoubtedly, I agree with all you wrote here.

We love him, because he loved us first, as John wrote. However, it does not say that He loved only a select few.

Enjoy your work day!

The Bible teaches that God chastises (disciplines) those he loves.

Does he do this to all equally? Absolutely not. He only disciplines his children who are indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Keachian]

Calvinism reduces man to a utter slave, in a misguided attempt at elevating YHWH's power & sovereignty.

Jesus makes a sharp distinction between those who are of their father the devil, and those who are his sheep.

I would use a more forceful comparison but you have a reduced canon for no reason.

 

[ananda]

The Bible teaches that God chastises (disciplines) those he loves. Does he do this to all equally? Absolutely not. He only disciplines his children who are indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

"For God so loved the world ..."

 

[ananda]

Jesus makes a sharp distinction between those who are of their father the devil, and those who are his sheep.

Agreed. Whether or not Elohim or man chooses their own status is up for debate!

I would use a more forceful comparison but you have a reduced canon for no reason.

I have many reasons

 

[Skala]

"For God so loved the world ..."

Which definition of "kosmos" (translated "world" into english) do you think John employed in John 3:16?

well, there is no guesswork necessary, because the Greek concordance (the Greek experts) tell us plainly that in John 3:16 the word "world" is referring to believers only. Don't believe me?

Kosmos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

This page lists the various definitions of "kosmos" (there's more than just one, you know), and then at the bottom it even gives examples of the final definition (of believers only) and lists John 3:16 as one of the examples!

here's another one that says the same thing.

Personally, I know that the Greek experts know a lot more than little old me, so I humbly yield to their knowledge.

Further, it seems some contextual guidance would help you regarding John 3:16. The verse says that God's love for the world caused him to send the Son..to save who? It plainly says "to save those who believe". If you think about it, it wouldn't make sense to say that God's love for "every individual" caused him to send the Son to only save some of them (as believers are a smaller group removed from the entire human race). That makes no sense. "God loves you all, but he sent Christ to save less than all of you!" The intention, the purpose (hina clause in John 3:16) is that He sent Christ to save believers only. Hence God's love and the result of God's love in sending Christ has the same group of people in mind: believers.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Hello Arco,

With all respect, I did NOT choose Calvinism or to agree with the Lord's Sovereignty. If I was left to myself, I would never have chosen Calvinism or freely decided anything for the Lord.

Is it not then the case that those of us who believe in Arminian soteriology ALSO do not really "choose" to do so? And since that is the case, there was really no point to your starting this futile discussion. We all believe what we believe, and are unable to choose otherwise.

 

[ananda]

Which definition of "kosmos" (translated "world" into english) do you think John employed in John 3:16? well, there is no guesswork necessary, because the Greek concordance (the Greek experts) tell us plainly that in John 3:16 the word "world" is referring to believers only. Don't believe me?

Kosmos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

This page lists the various definitions of "kosmos" (there's more than just one, you know), and then at the bottom it even gives examples of the final definition (of believers only) and lists John 3:16 as one of the examples!

here's another one that says the same thing.

Personally, I know that the Greek experts know a lot more than little old me, so I humbly yield to their knowledge.

Further, it seems some contextual guidance would help you regarding John 3:16. The verse says that God's love for the world caused him to send the Son..to save who? It plainly says "to save those who believe". If you think about it, it wouldn't make sense to say that God's love for "every individual" caused him to send the Son to only save some of them (as believers are a smaller group removed from the entire human race). That makes no sense. "God loves you all, but he sent Christ to save less than all of you!" The intention, the purpose (hina clause in John 3:16) is that He sent Christ to save believers only. Hence God's love and the result of God's love in sending Christ has the same group of people in mind: believers.

I disagree with the lexicon you quoted.

First off, Jn 3:16 says kosmon (accusative) - not kosmos (nominative).

Secondly, your quoted lexicon does not justify its reasoning for restricting the use of the word to "believers only". The entries in LSJ, Middle Liddell's, Slater, and Autenrieth suggest that it should always refer to the universal order of things without restriction.

Finally, it would not make sense in the context of Jn 3:16 to restrict "kosmon" to the faithful only. "For YHWH so loved the faithful ... that whomsoever continues to be faithful in His Son should not perish"? It makes more sense to accept the definition of "universal world", and the condition of salvation offered only to that portion of the world which continues to remain faithful in His Son.

 

[Skala]

I disagree with the lexicon you quoted.

First off, Jn 3:16 says kosmon (accusative) - not kosmos (nominative).

Secondly, your quoted lexicon does not justify its reasoning for restricting the use of the word to "believers only". The entries in LSJ, Middle Liddell's, Slater, and Autenrieth suggest that it should always refer to the universal order of things without restriction.

Finally, it would not make sense in the context of Jn 3:16 to restrict "kosmon" to the faithful only. "For YHWH so loved the faithful ... that whomsoever continues to be faithful in His Son should not perish"? It makes more sense to accept the definition of "universal world", and the condition of salvation offered only to that portion of the world which continues to remain faithful in His Son.

Sorry, I don't know Greek well enough to disagree with the experts. If you do, that's fine. It seems to make perfect sense for the verse to be saying "God loved this people, that he sent Christ to save this people". His love is demonstrated by saving them.

 

[ananda]

It seems to make perfect sense for the verse to be saying "God loved this people, that he sent Christ to save this people". His love is demonstrated by saving them.

But the verse does not say that.

It says

Statement of Fact: 1. God so loved all of the world,
Result: 2. That, as a result, He offered His only begotten Son to all the world,
YHWH's Offer: 3. That whomsoever from all the world should choose to be faithful in His Son,
Consequence of rejection or acceptance: 4. Should not perish, but have everlasting life.