Where Arminianism Fails.

Mark Quayle · Dec 9, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Sure it does, perfectly also.

Does a father give a stone to his son, if his son asks for a waffle ?

I don't see how your second sentence applies to your first.

But if one is not the son....

Have you got something more explicit to show that the command implies the ability to obey?

yeshuaslavejeff · Dec 9, 2019

Yahuweh is PERFECT, perfectly Righteous, and Perfectly Just.

NBB · Dec 9, 2019

In the arminian calvin debate i thought of that parable of the 'feast', a lot of people were invited but a lot refused too, then the father said: ok bring me the beggars, the poor, etc, people who wouldn't refuse.

Weren't the first invited people actually invited? yes they were, but they were proud or auto sufficient or
something like that, "God choose people that are nothing to ashame those who believe they are something".

DamianWarS · Dec 9, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
I'm not following your last sentence.

Also, fringe translations are often useful; the whole of Scripture does not disagree with any one part of it. But I did answer your post with another of my own. I don't claim that verse needs to apply how I did it in this post --I just pointed it out because it may be valid.

Scripture shows us a tension. It would be irresponsible to reject passages that point to a more Arminianism position but it is just as irresponsible to reject passage that points to a more Calvinist position. When we reject one in favour of the other we miss out on the biblical revelation. Don't hang so tightly on one position and read the passages for what they are telling us but let the tension exist (it's a good thing)

yeshuaslavejeff · Dec 9, 2019

DamianWarS said:
Scripture shows us a tension. It would be irresponsible to reject passages that point to a more Arminianism position but it is just as irresponsible to reject passage that points to a more Calvinist position.

Neither is to be supported.

"I AM OF PAUL"!
"I AM OF APOLLOS"!
"I AM OF CHRIST"!

tch tch..... haven't learned yet ?

ebedmelech · Dec 9, 2019

renniks said:
Proof? Yes, he went bad. That doesn't mean he was never a disciple.

Do you recall Jesus' prayer for the disciples in John 17? This is what prayed about them at John 17:6-12. Note what Jesus said to God of Judas at verse 12:

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;
8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.
11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Now, once again, Jesus knew He chose Judas for a purpose and that purpose was to fulfill the prophecy of Judas.

This is what Jesus said to the disciples at John 13 at the Passover meal and His institution of the Lord's Supper...John 13:5-11

5 Then He *poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.
6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?”
7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.”
8 Peter *said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.”
9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”
10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”
11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”

Judas was never saved, even though he was of the 12. Scripture is really clear on that. It was Jesus who said "Have I not chosen you 12 and one of you is a devil?". It was clear Judas was stealing money, as he kept the money bag...and clear Judas wasn't really concerned about the poor when Mary anointed his feet with the expensive perfume. If you want to think Judas was saved, so be it...but scripture simply doesn't support that.

Tra Phull · Dec 9, 2019

The parable of the feast that NBB referred to is significant. There were those who were invited, but resisted the invitation.

Calvinists do not look at that part of the parable, but harp on later part of "compel them to come in", referring to the later feast-participants, chosen after the others resisted the invitation.

Tra Phull · Dec 9, 2019

As far as Judas complaining when Mary poured the expensive ointment from the alabaster jar, I don't think Judas was the only one of the disciples who felt like that.

We can't let JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR outweigh Scripture.

HatGuy · Dec 9, 2019

Josheb said:
Ralationships are work.

Yes, it is God's work, not it is not Classical Arminianism and I have already explained how. You've just repeated the exact argument I corrected: redefining faith so it isn't a work; it's just a thing that isn't a work, it's a relationship.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

Hmmmm.....

You can tel me what I am and am not taking personally but it's not personal.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it, because when you tell others whet they are or are not doing you have made it personal.

"the likes of Dave?"

What is it you think you know about the likes of Dave?

And I was merely responding to the erroneous aspects of those wonderings. In response I've received a lot of content about the posters and nothing about the op-relevant content in the post.

Posts, not posters, HatGuy.

Ah, I see. If they'd read respected sources they'd post like me.

But it's not personal, you're just wondering.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

When I read evidence indicating what the posters here have not read I'll consider that evidence but I think you're going to have a difficult time proving a negative about people you've never met while ignoring the substance of their posts.

There's little evidence the discussion was taken seriously at all. There's little evidence the posters themselves were taken seriously given the assumption they haven't "read alternative arguments from respected source," when the more reasonable and rational conclusion given the facts already evidence is that it is because alternative arguments from respected sources were in fact read that they can and do make the cases they have asserted.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

And when they attempt to make cases in support of another's position they should do so accurately portraying that source's position. To do otherwise is called a straw man. Every theologian arguing a straw man, no matter how idiosyncratic (or not), should be ignored and most definitely not be used as a fallacious appeal to authority ignoring the source s/he's supposedly supporting.

There's only one topic being asserted in this op and you've managed to make the discussion about people, not topic.

Please look at what you write and think it through before posting it.

Then that is all that needs saying in response.

Tu quoque is fallacious. You should take the discussion at least serious nough so as not to post fallaciously, especially if there's an expectation to be taken with commensurate seriousness.

Please look at what you write...

That is not objectivity.

Most Cals here were former Arms or Weses. It is because of an objective appraisal we became Cals.

You are correct about one thing: you don't take these discussions very seriously, certainly neither the portion you or others contribute. Profile page says you've been in CF over five years. That's long enough to know how DBs work. It's also long enough to develop healthy boundaries because there's nothing in internet forums I find particularly important but that doesn't mean I don't take others and their positions seriously. False dichotomy.

Please look at what you write...

Now... if you have something op-relevant to post about something read in this op then I'm all eyes, otherwise the it's evident that op-relvant content is being ignored in favor of digression.

Well that escalated!

Tra Phull · Dec 9, 2019

The DISCIPLES - plural - complained about the "waste", and were rebuked by Jesus about it; Judas was not the only one. And that has nothing to do with "whether Judas was ever saved to begin with".

Tra Phull · Dec 9, 2019

"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He hath sent"

Josheb · Dec 9, 2019

renniks said:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

If you can't see the difference between faith and works shown here, I don't know what to tell you. And take note, he says that we receive the Spirit by having faith. Calvinism reverses this and says we have to have the Spirit to have faith. The contrast between faith and works is as plain as day and so is the order of salvation.

Context. Works of the Mosaic Law. Not works of the Law of the Spirit.

Romans 7:14-8:8
"For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

But this is exactly what Arminian soteriology asserts: while the sinner is still in the flesh, still unregenerate s/he pleases God.

Two laws. A person is either a slave of sin or a slave or righteousness. There is no middle ground and no third option of independence or autonomy. I received the Spirit by the law of the Spirit, not the law of sin and death.

Context.

You've missed it.

Those to whom the epistolary were written had and continue to have the law of the Spirit at work in them and it is by that law we are saved.

You neglected to render the opening of Galatians in its proper context even though Paul was conisistent and quite explicit the old law cannot save but the new law can and does. We are saved by grace through faith and this salvation that is by grace and through faith is not of our own. It - the whole package not just the salvation and not just the grace and not just the faith; the whole kit and caboodle - is a gift from God and He is creating us in His Son for good works He planned in advance for us to perform.

Not a single causal reference to human volition, especially not the sinfully dead slave's will/choice/volition/faith/belief or mind of flesh that cannot please God.

Arminians remove faith's inherent connection to works when Augustine, Luther, Calvin and the rest understood our salvation by faith alone necessarily begets works. The two cannot be extricated from one another so there is no sinful faith that is never acted upon, never voiced, never committed to before God saves.

When you find such an example in scripture you post it.

Otherwise, the Arminian soteriology is a salvation absent any explicit causal report of volitional agency and a salvation absent any explicit precedent example in the scriptures. The only way a volitionalist can ever make his case is through eisegetic inference.

And so far every single one of you Arms has demonstrated that fact and proven my posts correct.

So think! Something very specific is asked of you. Proof-texting won't resolve the failure. Eisegesis won't solve the failure. Ad hominem, goal post moving, onus shifting, red herrings, straw men and tu quoques will not resolve these failures. You just tried to prove faith isn't work and failed. You failed because you quoted a passage about the law of sin and not the law of the Spirit by which we are made free of the law of sin so we can, will, and do believe.

So either try it again with a properly exegetied text, or concede the point.

Josheb · Dec 9, 2019

Gup20 said:
Which verses did you present to support your claims? Which post number contains a good example of your scriptural exégesis on display?

All of them. Go back and re-read the posts. Not all scriptural references were quoted but I started with the ones you yourself quoted and simply noted their contexts - the contexts you neglected.

Dt. 30:19 was proof-texted. That is self evident. For you to say "There's not evidence!" is utter foolishness because it is self evident: you quoted a single verse removed from its inherent contexts and orced it to make an entire doctrinal statement.

Dt. 30:19 occurss within the context of people who already know God. The passage does not apply to those who do not know God. That is the evidence! You are invited to refute that fact but that attempt too will be foolish because God is speaking to the people He is asking to choose! But you go right on ahead and try to prove they did not know God sufficiently enough to be asked the questions of Dt. 30.

Dt. 30:19 not only occurs within the context of that group of Hebrews already knowing God, but it occurs with the contexts of several covenants, most marked that initiated with Abraham by God and that instituted by God at Sinai. Now you are invited to prove those covenants didn't exist in Dt. 30 but that is a fool's errand.

So the evidence was provided.

And ignored.

And then its existence denied.

Proving you unqualified to tell anyone here how to thing about salvation.

Josheb · Dec 9, 2019

HatGuy said:
Well that escalated!

Only in your own thinking.

I don't know why it is plain information plainly stated in an ordinary post is deemed personal or why it would be deemed "escalated." I do know how and why personal comments about posters is deemed personal. I also know it shouldn't happen. I also know ""Well that escalated" is more of the same digressive, off-the-topic avoidant subterfuge that has been posted between us the last three posts. No one makes you post off-topic but you and if you don't like me stating a post is off-topic then don't post that way if any other response is hoped for. In the absence of op-relevant content I will assume your motive and goal(s) are off-topic and irrelevant on purpose.

Do you have anything specific to post in response to the op-relevant content already posted, or not?

HatGuy · Dec 10, 2019

Josheb said:
Only in your own thinking.

I don't know why it is plain information plainly stated in an ordinary post is deemed personal or why it would be deemed "escalated." I do know how and why personal comments about posters is deemed personal. I also know it shouldn't happen. I also know ""Well that escalated" is more of the same digressive, off-the-topic avoidant subterfuge that has been posted between us the last three posts. No one makes you post off-topic but you and if you don't like me stating a post is off-topic then don't post that way if any other response is hoped for. In the absence of op-relevant content I will assume your motive and goal(s) are off-topic and irrelevant on purpose.

Do you have anything specific to post in response to the op-relevant content already posted, or not?

With regards to faith being a work, it seems pretty clear that the Bible always CONTRASTS faith and works when it comes to justification. After all, salvation is by faith. Rom 4:5 is a good example for clarity.

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness".

There's no qualifications that say faith is a work, well, anywhere. The only time faith comes close to being a work is John 6:29, as already mentioned, where it seems God does the work, and James 2 where faith is said to be proved by works. (Works complement faith, but in terms of justification, they contrast.) But not even James 2 classifies faith as a work.

"Relationships are work" may serve as a Dr Phil truism, but it's not a Biblical definition. See if you can actually show that faith is a work from the Bible, particularly the NT.

Strong in Him · Dec 10, 2019

Jesus is YHWH said:
follwing Christ is not the same as being drawn by the Father. the early church had anti-christs in their midst who were "following" Jesus.

So if someone is following Christ and then walks away, would you say that they were never saved or "appointed for salvation" in the first place?

The Spirit does draw people to God, but he doesn't force them to stay there.
God has chosen to given us the ability to choose. If he can choose, we are made in his image so it follows that we are able to choose also.

HatGuy · Dec 10, 2019

Josheb said:
Arminians remove faith's inherent connection to works when Augustine, Luther, Calvin and the rest understood our salvation by faith alone necessarily begets works. The two cannot be extricated from one another so there is no sinful faith that is never acted upon, never voiced, never committed to before God saves.

BEGETS works is not the same as actually being a work.

Strong in Him · Dec 10, 2019

Hazelelponi said:
Like choosing the nation of Israel?

Do you see Israel as more worthy than any other nation on earth to have picked all those years ago?

Yet God picked them...

Yes, God chose Israel to be his people, a light to the Gentiles and the race from which the Messiah would be born.
Jesus was always going to be born and take on flesh. He had to be descended from someone; he couldn't have had thousands of mothers. So a choice was made; first a race, then a tribe, then a family and so on. God chose the Jews to be his people and an example to, and light for, the Gentiles - the hope was that all nations would be drawn to God because of their example and because they saw what God had done for, and through, them.
They were chosen for a reason - and it was not to be safe and smug in their salvation and special position while the rest of the world burned.

Hazelelponi said:
You know Muslims STILL hate Israel for that favouritism? lol.. The sons of the free woman and the sons of thr slave woman fight over it to this very day

So?
It was God who made the choice, not Israel themselves.

Hazelelponi said:
So why not us?

God chose the Jews for a purpose - not that they, alone, would be saved while the rest of the world perished.
Yet that is what you seem to be saying about all people; that God has chosen to save only a few and send the rest to hell.

Hazelelponi said:
There are times we won't or can't understand on our side of time why God wills what He wills..

I don't believe that the God who IS love wills, and plans, for some of his creation to be sent to hell. I don't believe God would punish people for not knowing him when it was he who had decided that they would never be allowed to know him - that's not love.

Hazelelponi said:
look at Jonah. The thought of Nineveh being forgiven for their sins sickened him so much that he ran from the task at first... and was almost angry at God more than once over it..

Jonah knew that God was compassionate, merciful and would forgive the Ninevites - people who didn't know him. HE didn't want them to be forgiven, but he knew that God would.
That's the opposite of what you're saying; you're saying that God chooses not to forgive some people.

Hazelelponi said:
We don't always know why God wills the things He wills,

But we can know God, through the Bible and Jesus - and both of those reveal that God is love. Jesus said that God loves his enemies, he also said that God is a loving heavenly Father and perfect. How many fathers do you know who say to their partners "you're pregnant. I don't want anything to do with this child; I'll let you keep it, but I won't love it and it will never inherit anything from me. I'll love our next child and maybe the one after that, but I have already decided not to love this one"? Any earthly father who behaved like that would be reported, and maybe imprisoned, for neglect - so how can we say that our perfect heavenly Father behaves in that way? Matthew 5:48, Luke 11:13.

Dave L · Dec 10, 2019

Shrewd Manager said:
Is that your final answer or would you like to phone a friend? God's not going to fix my washing machine.

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col 1:17)

When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:28)

Sure, and it is God's will that all come to a knowledge and So find my any hellfire texts in the gospels involving unbelievers.

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)

Agreed, but what is destroyed? These passages show the nations are redeemed.

Yes, and when he uses metaphors like 'death' and 'hades' and 'lake of fire' and 'brimstone' and 'torment', we have to understand them spiritually, not carnally.

Proving the nations get renewed with all the other thingamajigs.

Correct, being the nations. Cause He knows the end from the beginning, and the end is salvation. Don't know how much simpler it can get.

What a sad and sinister picture. Just ignore that lot and rejoice. Love could not bear that.

Well, on the scoreboard its 10 carnally-interpreted damnation texts v 100+ spiritually-interpreted salvation texts. So unless my maths is worse than I thought...

You are reading free will (paganism) into scripture and arrive at a far different interpretation than if you read scripture as it stands.

Shrewd Manager · Dec 10, 2019

Dave L said:
You are reading free will (paganism) into scripture and arrive at a far different interpretation than if you read scripture as it stands.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (Jn 6:44)

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32)

Living water cascading down, can you feel it?

Where Arminianism Fails.

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

My dog Micah in the pic

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Some guy in a hat

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Christian

Christian

Christian

Some guy in a hat

Great is thy faithfulness

Some guy in a hat

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency