Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct like judas for example.
Well was John Calvin himself a warm and loving guy?Have you ever met a Calvinist who was a warm and loving guy?
Both?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?
No. Unless the reports were in error, he agreed with murder. (of those he thought should be murdered)Well was John Calvin himself a warm and loving guy?
Never savedWhich bit is correct - that they were never saved in the first place, or that they have the choice to walk away and reject God?
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."Well was John Calvin himself a warm and loving guy?
Not just suspicious - rather seek to expose the errors and not join in the errors.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!
Never saved
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.3) both scripturally and logically faith is accompanied by works manifestly testifying to the existence of that faith.
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.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.
You say you have faith? Great! Show me
Agreed, but I can't see the relevance.. And Christianity has long understood this by way of the confession of faith wherein the sinner 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.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."
Why does it need to be avoided though? Unless some presupposition insists it has to be avoided.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.
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.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.
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.2) Arminian soteriology makes God and His plan dependent upon the unrepentant sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate.
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.3) Arminian soteriology logically creates a middle state of knowing God without salvation that is nowhere mentioned in scripture and nowhere observable in reality.
Big words, so let's look at your two scriptures.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.
This is loaded with a bunch of its own ad hominem and consists of sweeping, generalised statements that are irrelevant.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.
The above is sufficient to deal with this repeat claim.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..
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....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 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.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.
There's not one iota of reference to hate/malice here, if this is what you are referring to when you ask“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)
What does Paul say?
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"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.
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.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...
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).The Arminian scheme has this going for it...
LOL! Well, which is it? Is it a straw man, or is it an "even if this were true" reality?This is a strawman. And even if it were true...
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.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.
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.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....
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.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.
That has already been posted, and agreed upon. Nothing new is added by the redundancy.Arminians are not a homogenous group, from the cookie-cutter mold of the Puppet-Master "God" of Calvinism...
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.I do not acknowledge that there are any "valid complaints" against Arminianism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?