Where Arminianism Fails.

[Strong in Him]

Correct like judas for example.

Which bit is correct - that they were never saved in the first place, or that they have the choice to walk away and reject God?

 

[Barney2.0]

Have you ever met a Calvinist who was a warm and loving guy?

Well was John Calvin himself a warm and loving guy?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Which bit is correct - that they were never saved in the first place, or that they have the choice to walk away and reject God?

Both?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well was John Calvin himself a warm and loving guy?

No. Unless the reports were in error, he agreed with murder. (of those he thought should be murdered)

I don't know how anyone could either absolutely verify or disprove this though.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Which bit is correct - that they were never saved in the first place, or that they have the choice to walk away and reject God?

Never saved

 

[rockytopva]

Well was John Calvin himself a warm and loving guy?

Before Calvin the Catholics would create inquisitions to punish those against their church. If that wasn't bad enough Luther and Calvin both would consent to violence to protect their beloved church doctrine. Hence the German proverb, "All mischief begins in the name of God."

Terrible thing! I would be suspicious of anyone consumed with hatred over your not going along with them on religious thinking!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Before Calvin the Catholics would create inquisitions to punish those against their church. If that wasn't bad enough Luther and Calvin both would consent to violence to protect their beloved church doctrine. Hence the German proverb, "All mischief begins in the name of God."

Terrible thing! I would be suspicious of anyone consumed with hatred over your not going along with them on religious thinking!

Not just suspicious - rather seek to expose the errors and not join in the errors.
Test to see if anything is right, as Scripture says, and stick with Scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

Never saved

Not sure Judas is a great example of your argument - he was sent out to preach, drive out demons and heal the sick.

 

[Tra Phull]

I heard Calvin was so warm and loving that he wanted Servetus is to JUST BE BEHEADED instead of BURNED ALIVE, but the council over-ruled the warm and loving John Calvin and burned Servetus alive.

Calvin had earlier written that if Servetus ever came to Geneva, he would not let him leave alive.

Warm, loving Johnny Calvin.

 

[Tra Phull]

Compel them to come in, then BURN 'EM UP !!!

 

[HatGuy]

3) both scripturally and logically faith is accompanied by works manifestly testifying to the existence of that faith.

It wasn't clear that this was your original point, but if that's your point, I suggest we not debate the point, it will only derail the thread.

The Arminian who says a person - the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate person - believes and is then saved still has to prove this is a faith that begets good works prior to being saved.

Why? I see no reason why that needs to be proved, what you'd be looking for, and why such a request is even logical. When a person has faith is when a person believes. How could anyone prove they had faith before they, well, had faith? This is not a logical request.

You say you have faith? Great! Show me

. And Christianity has long understood this by way of the confession of faith wherein the sinner declares "I believe!"

Agreed, but I can't see the relevance.

Arminians say it is the still-sinfully-enslaved-and-dead-unregenerate-non-believer who believes and the Calvinists say it is the formerly-unregenerate-now-regenerate believer who declares "I believe."

Yes, the Ordo Salutis is different. But stating as such does not prove one or the other wrong or right. Rather, one must show why the Arminian Ordo is wrong. So far, I'm not seeing anything explicitly biblical against it.

And in this way is avoided the problem of finding someone who knows and is known by God but isn't saved. In this way the problem of God being dependent upon sinful man is avoided. In this way the problem of the intermediate knowing-but-not-saved state is avoided.

Why does it need to be avoided though? Unless some presupposition insists it has to be avoided.

The Arminian scheme has this going for it: it conditions personal salvation on what the Bible does, which is faith. 'Repent and believe' is the Biblical condition and the call in evangelism. Therefore, I see no reason why a sort-of intermediate state where the Word of God frees a person's will to believe is to be avoided. I see no reason why it needs to be avoided philosophically, logically, and especially biblically - especially since the Bible claims that the gospel is the power of salvation, showing that the gospel itself carries power to do something.

Whether we continue to split hairs over the faith works contrast or not, the facts in evidence remain:

1) Non-believers are by definition not believers but Arminian soteriology says the non-believer believes freely from his/her will because God has liberated that person to do so prior to regeneration but there is no such text in the Bible but there is plenty of the opposite making the silence not a place upon which to base doctrine.

Under the Arminian scheme, regeneration happens after faith. Just because Arminianism does not match up to the Calvinist scheme, it doesn't mean it fails.

But the Bible (again and again) conditions personal salvation on faith - not on a predetermined, hidden will of God. The commandment is 'repent and believe' not 'be predestined and believe'. Calvinists have ways of getting around this, but I see them as largely inadequate. Given that you don't want us to speak about Calvinism, then I won't press the point further, but all I see right now are presuppositions. It's only when you presuppose an individualistic predestination that you run into these problems. By itself, though, Arminianism's thought is to stick more literally to the text - which says 'repent and believe'.

2) Arminian soteriology makes God and His plan dependent upon the unrepentant sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate.

This is a strawman. And even if it were true, what if God was happy with such an arrangement? This goes back to my first post, which you said wasn't relevant, but perhaps you can see its relevance here. When you presuppose a certain definition of power and sovereignty, then anything less than that seems like a failure - but what presuppositions does the Bible give us when it comes to God's power and sovereignty? I submit, not the way it is defined under typical Calvinist Western schemes (and even under typical Arminian Western schemes, mind you). Ideas such as immutability, for example, are borrowed from Platonic thought and the Bible seems to show a very different nature to God.

3) Arminian soteriology logically creates a middle state of knowing God without salvation that is nowhere mentioned in scripture and nowhere observable in reality.

Again, this middle-state is not problematic, why should it be? Only if you have a problem with it will it seem problematic. The 'middle-state' is logically before regeneration on the Ordo Salutis under Arminianism, but we all know that an Ordo Salutis is not necessarily chronological. How would you expect to see such a middle state? Are you insisting that someone must somehow show works of faith before coming to faith? What you're asking for is illogical.

4) The above three conditions occur in spite of the fact that Arminius himself was an ardent believer of what we now call total depravity. He argued for some kind of event in which God freed the sinner to repent and believe and have faith and act upon that faith/belief that is nowhere found mentioned in the Bible. This moment of prevenient grace is entirely hypothetical based solely on an eisegetically inferential reading of scripture that ignores some of the most blunt statements found therein, such as Romans 8:6 and 1 Cor. 2:14.

Big words, so let's look at your two scriptures.

Romans 8:6
"6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace."

Does not defeat the idea of prevenient grace.

1 Corinthians 2:14
"14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Coming a little closer, but still no cigar. Of course the carnally minded cannot accept the things of God - that's why the Holy Spirit, through the gospel, sets a person free. The flesh cannot understand the gospel, so the Holy Spirit must illumine. The gospel brings the revelation that takes off the blinders. It brings the necessary power along with it because the Spirit works through the Word of God. However, the Holy Spirit can be resisted, as Stephen states in Acts 7:51.

Given that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11) and that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (John 16:8), not just the elect, I see very little reason to believe that prevenient grace is simply some man-made construct to support a system. Even if I look at how Arminius came to this view, it wasn't because he had an idea and then looked for scriptural support, it's because he saw something in scripture and couldn't square it with Calvinism. (No, this is not an appeal to authority, it is to deal with your own bringing up of him and accusing him of eisegesis).

Furthermore, Calvinists believe in their own sort-of prevenient grace, by the way. It's called predestination.

5) Attempts to discuss the above four conditions invariably reveals the eisegetic and inferential nature of Arminianism. Arminians proof-text scripture, ignore the contexts (local and global), and take scriptures written by the regenerate to the regenerate about the regenerate and attempt to apply them to the unregenerate non-believer. When this is pointed out then red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem ensue.

This is loaded with a bunch of its own ad hominem and consists of sweeping, generalised statements that are irrelevant.

These five failings in Arminianism have been demonstrated by those defending Arminianism in this very op. If I add,

6) Arminians require a non-believer's belief that is not operationalized, and requires no behavioral manifestation like acknowledgement, professing, or confession..

The above is sufficient to deal with this repeat claim.

...to the list that isn't making Arminianism look better, but worse, and the moment the need for confession is acknowledged then the Arminian soteriology becomes a salvation by works.

Can you address these concerns? Or do you maybe want to acknowledge there's actually some substance to the complaint over the failings of Arminianism?

I've already acknowledged in this thread that there are valid complaints about Armininianism. But my complaints, I guess, are not the same as yours.

 

[Tra Phull]

Arminians are not a homogenous group, from the cookie-cutter mold of the Puppet-Master "God" of Calvinism...

I do not acknowledge that there are any "valid complaints" against Arminianism.

 

[HatGuy]

Arminians are not a homogenous group, from the cookie-cutter mold of the Puppet-Master "God" of Calvinism...

I do not acknowledge that there are any "valid complaints" against Arminianism.

I think one shouId have some complaints about every theological system, even their own, to keep from becoming tribalistic and to push them towards continuing study of the scriptures.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

“What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:” Romans 9:22 (KJV 1900)

There's not one iota of reference to hate/malice here, if this is what you are referring to when you ask

What does Paul say?

 

[Tra Phull]

"tribalistic"
Hmmmm... have to watch out for that

I have complaints against Calvinism.
I have complaints against those who say "both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong" because I don't think Arminianism is wrong.
I have complaints against other Arminians, if they are OSAS, or if they say "Faith is not a work" in spite of John 6 saying "this is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent".

But why in the world would I have "complaints" against MY OWN THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM - that which I have arrived at through Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience?

Why do I need to be PUSHED into further study of Scripture?

I do it without being PUSHED.

 

[Tra Phull]

Elisha's Bear - weren't there Two Bears?

 

[HatGuy]

"tribalistic"
Hmmmm... have to watch out for that

I have complaints against Calvinism.
I have complaints against those who say "both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong" because I don't think Arminianism is wrong.
I have complaints against other Arminians, if they are OSAS, or if they say "Faith is not a work" in spite of John 6 saying "this is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent".

But why in the world would I have "complaints" against MY OWN THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM - that which I have arrived at through Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience?

Why do I need to be PUSHED into further study of Scripture?

I do it without being PUSHED.

To each his own on this, I suppose. It may have a lot to do with personality too. I'm always asking a lot of questions and have found how to make that into a positive, I guess. But also, I've changed my mind over the years, and found I was embarrassed with how I defended stuff I no longer believe .

But if you continue to study, believe, and have a heart for the lost, do whatever it takes to keep on keeping on . That's my unsolicited advice anyway.

 

[Josheb]

Why? I see no reason why that needs to be proved... Agreed, but I can't see the relevance... Yes, the Ordo Salutis is different. But stating as such does not prove... I'm not seeing... Why does it need to be avoided...

That and everything else in this post has already been addressed. Content already posted is being ignored and nothing new is being added to the discussion. The "Why?" has been answered. Go back and re-read the posts.... and don't ask questions already answered.

The Arminian scheme has this going for it...

Irrelevant. Off-topic. This op s not about what Arminianism has going for it. It coudl have ten gazillion things going for it but a single fatal flaw makes it worthless and five or six substantive concerns have been broached and your response is "I don't see it" (blindness) and "Yeah, but what about..." (red herring).

This is a strawman. And even if it were true...

LOL! Well, which is it? Is it a straw man, or is it an "even if this were true" reality?

It is not a straw man. A straw man is any argument based on a misrepresentation. I have not misrepresented Arminianism, and you have not proven otherwise. You have to explain how the straw man occurs.

And you didn't.

The facts of Arminianism, as reported here in this very op by the Arminians, is that God does not save until the dead and enslaved, futilely-thinking, heart-darkened, hostile-to-God, Spirit-empty and foolish non-believer believes. That is Arminianism and that has been testified to in this op.

So you're plainly wrong and that has been evidenced and proven by those on your own side of this (non-)discussion.

So you ask, "What if God was happy with such an arrangement?" well, HatGuy, first you've got to prove such an arrangement exists in scripture and you haven't. It is common for Arms to say things like, "God permitted Himself to wait upon the sinner..." or "God allowed Himself to be thusly dependent..." in an effort to avoid the conflict with sovereignty, but no one ever shows up to prove such claims. You are invited right now to do so. Can't prove God happy with an arrangement that doesn't exist.

Big words, so let's look at your two scriptures.

Romans 8:6
"6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace."

Does not defeat the idea of prevenient grace.

It does if that sinfully dead sinner still has a mind of flesh in the liberated moment in which he is "free" to choose God salvifically.

Prevenient grace may have brought the ded slave to a moment of liberty of choice but unless that grace has already changed that sinfully dead slave s/he still has a mind of flesh, and according to plainly read, properly exegeted scripture the blunt declaration of God's word is s/he does not and cannot please God. Presumably, believing in the gospel would be pleasing to God.

So it is the veracity of prevenient grace relevant to the Arminian soteriology that is defeated.

1 Corinthians 2:14
"14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Coming a little closer, but still no cigar. Of course the carnally minded cannot accept the things of God - that's why the Holy Spirit, through the gospel, sets a person free. The flesh cannot understand the gospel, so the Holy Spirit must illumine....

The freed person who remains sinfully dead and enslaved still has a carnal mind. There are only two options in scripture: 1) a mind of flesh, or 2) a mind of Spirit. The unregenerate non-believer in a moment of free choice still does not have the mind of Christ; he'd be already-saved if he had the mind of Christ! It is the mind governed/controlled by the Spirit that is life.

So I'm not "coming a little closer;" I'm spot on and you are avoiding the problem.

I've already acknowledged in this thread that there are valid complaints about Armininianism. But my complaints, I guess, are not the same as yours.

Perhaps you'd be forthcoming and on-topically share what you consider to be other failings of Arminianism rather thaan simply repeating the statement about those complaints and not actually posting the complaints.

 

[Josheb]

Arminians are not a homogenous group, from the cookie-cutter mold of the Puppet-Master "God" of Calvinism...

That has already been posted, and agreed upon. Nothing new is added by the redundancy.

I do not acknowledge that there are any "valid complaints" against Arminianism.

Then go home. The valid complaints have been listed (see Post #469, and others) and address that content op-relevantly because mere denial is not an argument for or against anything.

 

[Tra Phull]

Josheb, it is not within your current purview to tell me to "just go home"

You are going on IGNORE, I will continue to post as I feel led.

And I see no "failures of Arminianism" validly posted in this thread.