Where Arminianism Fails.

[Elisha's Bear]

Yep.

Yep. Completely agree, but 1) that's an argument from silence and 2) it fails to address the point made: the fact that 3) both scripturally and logically faith is accompanied by works manifestly testifying to the existence of that faith.

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

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."

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.

Yes, and I addressed that point and have yet to receive a cogent response.


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.

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

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

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.

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.​

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...​

...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 find it quite puzzling when folks insist upon arguing Soteriology within the framework of human-devised laws of logic, when other branches of Theology so obviously defy them.

 

[ebedmelech]

You have these Calvinist that all they do is dwell on predestination. That's all they seem to want to do.

To me, that's a lack of maturity. I'm in agreement with John Calvin, but most people never know it because I seldom bring up predestination. Mainly because I don't know who's predestined. Only God knows that.

I came to believe in predestination from reading scripture. I think it's plain as day that no one will be in heaven that was n ok t chosen by God, before the foundation of the world.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

That would only mean one was not his, or both were his, if it mattered. Just one bear is needed in this forum.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I find it quite puzzling when folks insist upon arguing Soteriology within the framework of human-devised laws of logic, when other branches of Theology so obviously defy them.

It is puzzling to me also, as when any particular point of someone's argument is wrong, they think that is okay because the bigger picture is okay... or if only one or a few points is right, that makes the bigger picture right too ! ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You have these Calvinist that all they do is dwell on predestination. That's all they seem to want to do.

To me, that's a lack of maturity. I'm agree with John Calvin, but most people never know it because I seldom bring up predestination.

Did he have good effects (saving OR even just healing people ) ?

Do you agree with his mistakes ?

 

[HatGuy]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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'm afraid your consistent tone and manner, not only to me but also to others, does not serve you very well. It hides any valid point you might make under a veil of hubris and renders your points as mostly useless. I don't understand why you continue to froth at anyone who does not agree with your points. In debate, people disagree and discuss. Telling them to "go home" means you perhaps have lost the point of a forum.

I'm disengaging and ignoring you as well. Enjoy your echo chamber.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The way God saves a person is different for everyone.

Except that it INVARIABLY concludes with the person Surrendering to the Holy Spirit, Repenting of their sin, and crying out to God in FAITH (that HE gives) to SAVE them.

I don't disagree....but I don't think Satan has the ability to keep someone from being regenerated by God.

With OUR COOPERATION he does.

 

[Dave L]

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

God hates sinners. = wrath or mercy.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

God hates sinners. = wrath or mercy.

Over my head.

So if God has mercy on me and saves me, He is still going to hate me?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The way God saves a person is different for everyone.

Did you consider the thousands saved at one time in ACTS ?
All "the same" - and no one contrary to Scripture at all, ever, throughout the Scripture, OT and NT.

 

[Josheb]

I'm afraid your consistent tone and manner...

"Tone" in a text-based medium is something read into the post, not something inherently or objectively occurring (unless specifically stated). You have a Matthew 7:5 and Luke 6:45 condition that warrants change because it is getting in your way of your own posting and there has been a repeated lack of response despite many requests for change.

If you don't like my plain or blunt way of posting then ignore the posts but 1) don't attack me personally, and 2) don't blame me for your perceptions. The evidence shows many here commend the content of what I've posted. The evidence shows you ignoring that content and blaming me for the avoidance.

I'm disengaging and ignoring you as well. Enjoy your echo chamber.

That is your prerogative but the record shows you could not, would not, and did not address the concerns of this op despite more than request to do so (Tit. 3:9-11). It's not personal, HatGuy, that is simply the facts in evidence objectively observable by any and all.

So take note of my handle. Next time don't bother posting to me if you're not willing and able to respond to the actual content and what you read as "tone" unless the intent is to post commentary for the benefit of others, understanding non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, ad hominem, false causes, and eisegesis will be noted as such.

To reiterate: at this point in the op there are at least five, perhaps six failings occurring in Arminian soteriology:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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



No "tone" required.

 

[Dave L]

Over my head.

So if God has mercy on me and saves me, He is still going to hate me?

If God loves you for a reason found in you, he doesn't need to save you as much as if you have nothing to love and he hates you. But saves you because he is love. = you get none of the glory. But in saving you, he gives you a lovable nature, but since it is him giving it, he still receives full glory in salvation.

 

[Josheb]

Over my head. So if God has mercy on me and saves me, He is still going to hate me?

There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

The way God saves a person is different for everyone.

That might just be the most unbiblical comment I've ever read from a Christian (I'm assuming—I'm on mobile web, so I can't see your faith ID).

 

[fhansen]

The quote refers, by "evil", to catastrophe or things we commonly refer to as bad luck.

Many of the Reformed persuasion use it because they acknowledge that unless the will of man is involved, in continuing the rebellion of Adam (refusing to turn back to God and away from sin) then the only will left is God's. This would make Him both the cause of evil and the cause of salvation.

But "can do nothing but sin" is the result of "always choosing to sin", or as Reformed doctrine would say, having sin inherent in all one does. When it comes to choosing to reject their own creator, the will is involved --there are no victims here.

The problem is that one cannot refrain from sin for long unless they're in communion with their Creator. That's the basis of the New Covenant. And that is why the primary and most basic-the original- sin is the worst in one sense, because it's the progenitor of all the rest. Man's first obligation, then, is to enter, or re-enter, relationship with God, 'apart from whom we can do nothing', via faith.

God's command, btw, does not imply the ability to obey it.

Yes, it does. God would be hypocritical to command something we couldn't fulfill, much less blame us for not fulfilling it, much less send us to eternal torment for not fulfilling it.

 

[Christopher0121]

I've been trying to get an Arminian to address the issue why one would choose to believe an another not choose to believe.
What is their decision based upon?

I believe that both man and God have free will.

I believe in a Prevenient Grace. This is the drawing of the Holy Spirit. When the Gospel is preached and Prevenient Grace is at work, the lost are "drawn" by God. However, they have free will and can resist this drawing and remain lost. In addition, the born again believer who continues in willful and sinful rebellion will find themselves becoming hardened by their rebellion until God surrenders them to their own will entirely and they are cut off.

 

[-57]

With OUR COOPERATION he does.

I see that as partially right. 2 Cor 2:4 tells us...The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

but...verse 6 says...For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

God trumps Satan

 

[-57]

Did you consider the thousands saved at one time in ACTS ?
All "the same" - and no one contrary to Scripture at all, ever, throughout the Scripture, OT and NT.

It doesn't matter if they all became believers at the same time....each individual had different ups and downs in their lives.

But, in a sense all people become believers when they are regenerated. The path to regeneration is different for everyone.

 

[-57]

I believe that both man and God have free will.

So do I.

I believe in a Prevenient Grace. This is the drawing of the Holy Spirit. When the Gospel is preached and Prevenient Grace is at work, the lost are "drawn" by God. However, they have free will and can resist this drawing and remain lost. In addition, the born again believer who continues in willful and sinful rebellion will find themselves becoming hardened by their rebellion until God surrenders them to their own will entirely and they are cut off.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe in Prevenient Grace. Sure, God works in people...draws...as you mentioned above but Pauls also says in Phil 1:6... And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

As to the "born again believer" who continues in willful and sinful rebellion...one has to question if they were ever saved.

 

[-57]

That might just be the most unbiblical comment I've ever read from a Christian (I'm assuming—I'm on mobile web, so I can't see your faith ID).

Yes, I can see your confusion. I should have presented it better. God draws all soon to be believers differently. The actual regeneration, washing of the blood of Christ is the same.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

If God loves you for a reason found in you, he doesn't need to save you as much as if you have nothing to love and he hates you. But saves you because he is love. = you get none of the glory. But in saving you, he gives you a lovable nature, but since it is him giving it, he still receives full glory in salvation.

In my little mind, to sustain this position the Bible would have to look like the redacted Mueller Report.

If God loves you for a reason found in you,

God loves me because love is What He Is. That's why He made me in His image and "so loved the world (everyone, right?), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever (free will choice, right?) believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

For the record: I think the missing link might be here:
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. (Romans 12:3)

he doesn't need to save you as much as if you have nothing to love and he hates you.

This just sounds weird to me. Save me as much as if--and just like that, my brain shuts down. (My brain has a Bible-shaped, sized, and colored filter that just can't understand some stuff.)

But saves you because he is love. = you get none of the glory.

Absolutely no argument there. Hallelujah, Amen!

But in saving you, he gives you a lovable nature,

This just turns 1 John 4:19 around backwards.

"We love Him because He first loved us."

So He gives me a lovable nature so that He is then able to love me?

"But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

but since it is him giving it, he still receives full glory in salvation.

Hey, if this is about glory and I'm just not getting the other stuff, you're preaching to the choir.

But I'm still reeling from the "God hates sinners = wrath or mercy" equation.