Why do Arminians...

[stan1953]

So the cross was just an unfortunate byproduct of Jesus' obedience? If He'd have lived to a ripe old age, we'd still be good to go?

Nope.

 

[stan1953]

A perfect example of a thread derail attempt, to wrangle over nit-picky details because some were caught taking to task another because they misunderstood what he said, because they will jump at any opportunity to make a Calvinist look bad, and to smear Calvinist theology by the employment of the very method being used to derail the thread. There have been so many straw man fallacies employed in this foolhardy mission to destroy Calvinism, that straw is at a premium. and before someone asks for proof, and/or examples, use Oz's definition (which is actually very good), and judge previous posts in this and other threads by that standard.
And just for the record, Hammster did not use a straw man fallacy, his original statement/question was misunderstood, and what followed after was based on that misunderstanding.

Well maybe if your fellow Calvinist would attempt to actually defend his POVs with more than a few words we would not have to be so picky about the few words he does use. In any event there is no derailing going on.
Your words clearly demonstrate a certain hostility that exists in your own perception against those that don't support your dogma. The effort being employed is to make people see the truth in scripture. Once that is realized, there is no need to destroy something that will fall apart on it's own.

 

[Hammster]

You are using the verb form, while I used the noun form. Don't confuse them.

Let me ask you, when God was planning the crucifixion (as you say), did He already know how it would happen?

He planned it (according to scripture).

 

[Hammster]

I'm not a mind reader, so why you do it is up to you to tell us.

But this I know: You sure know how to construct a straw man logical fallacy with your interpretation of Acts 2:23.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person (The Nizkor Project).

​

You do not want Acts 2:23 to mean the foreknowledge of the crucifixion when its direct words are 'the foreknowledge of God'. But what does the verse state?

New American Standard Bible
this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
​

What is included in God's 'predetermined plan and foreknowledge'?

1. This Man, Jesus, was 'delivered over';
2. He was 'nailed to a cross';
3. He was placed on the cross 'by the hands of godless men',
   
4. 'and put to death'.

This is referring to Jesus' trial (delivered over) and crucifixion (nailed to a cross; put to death). The foreknowledge of God, according to Acts 2:23, was God's foreknowledge of Jesus' trial and crucifixion.

So you have created a straw man fallacy in your refusal to see that 'the foreknowledge of God' refers to God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion and what would happen there.

When you engage in the use of this logical fallacy in creating your distorted view of what Acts 2:23 states, we cannot have a logical conversation.

But the buck stops with you. You can quit your use of this logical fallacy in regard to Acts 2:23, or you can continue with this fallacious reasoning. If you do the latter, logical reasoning with you comes to a halt.

Oz

This constant false accusation is really unbecoming.

 

[Hammster]

Basically because God's plan is precipitated on His foreknowledge. This order is consistent in the NT. Foreknowledge always is first in how God makes His contingencies if you will. Of course contingency or most other words fall far short of what goes into God's plan, but I word it as best I can. As the Bible teaches, prophecy is a form of foreknowledge so in that sense Christ fulfilled everything that was prophesied about Him, or what God KNEW would happen beforehand.

If He foreknew what would happen, what's there to plan?

 

[Hammster]

Nope.

That's what your view leads to, though. God didn't plan. He just saw what was going to happen.

 

[EmSw]

He planned it (according to scripture).

So, it is your contention that God didn't know it would happen or how it would happen until He planned it.

 

[sdowney717]

So, it is your contention that God didn't know it would happen or how it would happen until He planned it.

We know when God planned and determined this. From the beginning, likely before the world was created.
Revelation 13:8
New King James Version (NKJV)

8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

And with similar words, our names have been...what does it say about those who are of the world?

Rev 17
8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

 

[rockytopva]

That's what your view leads to, though. God didn't plan. He just saw what was going to happen.

Ahhhh... And so he did!

1. Ephesians church age
2. Smyrnaen church age- 10 days-ten Roman persecutions
3. Pergamean church age - Orthodox
4. Thyatirean church age
5. Sardisean church age
6. Philadelphian church age - a'loving John Wesley!
7. Laodicean church age - Rich, increased with goods and have need of nothing?

Yes my precious, he did see what was going to happen!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sure. Do you are with scripture that God planned the crucifixion?

Do I are what with Scripture?

If yoy asked if I agree with Scripture, yes, I always do agree with Scripture. And it was God's plan that His Son go to the cross to pay the sin debt for mankind. Yes, sir, I always agree with Scripture.

 

[stan1953]

Ahhhh... And so he did!

1. Ephesians church age
2. Smyrnaen church age- 10 days-ten Roman persecutions
3. Pergamean church age - Orthodox
4. Thyatirean church age
5. Sardisean church age
6. Philadelphian church age - a'loving John Wesley!
7. Laodicean church age - Rich, increased with goods and have need of nothing?

Yes my precious, he did see what was going to happen!

Thanks Smeegle.

 

[stan1953]

That's what your view leads to, though. God didn't plan. He just saw what was going to happen.

Nope, despite your assertion, that is not what my view leads to.
If God planned it, then why did he wait thousands of years?
I understand this concept will be foreign to you, but God's plan was always predicated on free will choices and He foresaw exactly WHEN those choices would fit into His plans to redeem mankind. The very same reason He only predestined those who chose His Son as their savior.
Our mindset has to be one where God's choices cannot possibly be understood, but have to be accepted by faith. Then as Hebrews teaches us, the evidence of our faith will be seen and realized.
The Bible was a fait accompli before God inspired it and it was written.

 

[EmSw]

We know when God planned and determined this. From the beginning, likely before the world was created.

So, you believe God didn't know anything about the crucifixion before the creation of the world. Besides, God has no beginning; therefore, He always knew it would happen and how it would happen. If He always knew how it would happen and why, then there is no need to plan it.

And with similar words, our names have been...what does it say about those who are of the world?

How were our names written in the Book of Life, if we had no life from the foundation of the world? Do you think God being outside of time is foreign to our thinking and difficult to comprehend from the light of this world? Would you agree man needs to view this from the light of Heaven?

 

[stan1953]

This constant false accusation is really unbecoming.

WHAT false accusation? I don't see one.

 

[Hammster]

So, it is your contention that God didn't know it would happen or how it would happen until He planned it.

No. It happened as He planned it to happen. If He hadn't decided to have His Son sacrificed, it never would have happened.

 

[Hammster]

Do I are what with Scripture?

If yoy asked if I agree with Scripture, yes, I always do agree with Scripture. And it was God's plan that His Son go to the cross to pay the sin debt for mankind. Yes, sir, I always agree with Scripture.

Then yoy and I are in agreement. Mostly.

 

[Hammster]

Nope, despite your assertion, that is not what my view leads to.
If God planned it, then why did he wait thousands of years?

Um, it was His plan.

I understand this concept will be foreign to you, but God's plan was always predicated on free will choices and He foresaw exactly WHEN those choices would fit into His plans to redeem mankind. The very same reason He only predestined those who chose His Son as their savior.
Our mindset has to be one where God's choices cannot possibly be understood, but have to be accepted by faith. Then as Hebrews teaches us, the evidence of our faith will be seen and realized.
The Bible was a fait accompli before God inspired it and it was written.

So God really had to wait to see what free will choices would be made?

 

[stan1953]

Um, it was His plan.

I asked it if WAS a plan. Another typical non-answer.

So God really had to wait to see what free will choices would be made?

Again your limited human concept comes into play here. Who said God waited?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Then, He "does" sin, as well??? That would be the conclusion of your view.

In retrospect I might have chosen (or is it elected ) a better word than "does" for God's concurrent participation in the actions of men. Even so I don't believe it is an all together wrong concept from scripture.

In case anyone missed it along the way, I really dislike titles or having to be pigeon holed into a particular camp in order to be able to give and take with other Christians at a high level such as here in the forum. ("I am of Paul"........."I am of Apollos..........Are we not mere men?" 1 Corinthians 3:4+)

I think it fair to say that I lean generally more toward the Calvinist camp than the Arminian camp. I definitaly spend more time arguing with Arminians than Calvinists. But then there are many Calvinists who would readily disown me for strenuously objecting to the doctrine of limited atonement.

Can't really win unless I just call myself a Bible believing student of scripture. But then don't we all?

My answer to FreeGrace2's post is an example of my holding a view that is slightly askew from the classic Calvinist point of view. I'm betting it probably isn't too far off from his view even with our differences over some area. I could be wrong of course. Wouldn't be the first time I put words in his mouth.

This makes for a long post but I don't know a better way to explain than an excerpt from an article from the website "Society of Evangelical Arminian" - a site I highly recommend to my Calvin leaning brothers.

I could of course recommend some Calvinist sources for my fellow Arminian brothers if asked to do so.

It's OK to change or modify ones viewpoint on doctrine as life goes on you know? This isn't a contest. It's Christians trying their best to help other Christians to understand doctrine. I hope all agree on that - although reading through some of the arguments I'm not really completely sure of that.

• "Arminius was puzzled about the accusation that he held corrupt opinions respecting the providence of God, because he went out of his way to affirm it. He even went so far as to say that every human act, including sin, is impossible without God’s cooperation! This is simply part of divine concurrence, and Arminius was not willing to regard God as a spectator. His only two exceptions to God’s providential control were stated in his letter to Hippolytus A Collibus ~ that God does not cause sin, and that human liberty (to commit sin freely) not be abridged.5

If God “cooperates with” a sinner, as Arminius stated, when he or she freely sins (not via necessitarian divine fiat but by genuine freedom of choice), how is He not considered a sinner also? Olson, quoted at length, explains:

• That Arminius held a high view of God’s sovereignty and did not fall into a deistic mode of thinking about providence is proven by his account of divine concurrence. According to this, God does not permit sin as a spectator; God is never in the spectator mode. Rather, God not only allows sin and evil designedly and willingly, although not approvingly or efficaciously, but he cooperates with the creature in sinning without being stained by the guilt of sin. God both permits and effects a sinful act, such as the rebellion of Adam, because no creature can act apart from God’s help. In several of his writings Arminius carefully explained divine concurrence, which is without doubt the most subtle aspect of his doctrine of sovereignty and providence. For him God is the first cause of whatever happens; even a sinful act cannot occur without God as its first cause, because creatures have no ability to act without their Creator, who is their supreme cause for existence. . . .
  Arminius argued that when God has permitted an act, God never denies concurrence to a rational and free creature for that would be contradictory. In other words, once God decides to permit an act, even a sinful one, he cannot consistently withhold the power to commit it. However, in the case of sinful or evil acts, whereas the same event is produced by both God and the human being, the guilt of the sin is not transferred to God, because God is the effecter of the act but only the permitter of the sin itself.
  This is why Scripture sometimes attributes evil deeds to God; because God concurs with them. God cooperates with the sinners who commit them. But that does not mean God is the efficacious cause of them or wills them, except according to his “consequent will.” God allows them and cooperates with them unwillingly in order to preserve the sinners’ liberty, without which sinners would not be responsible and repentant persons would not enter into a truly personal and loving relationship with God.

This differs significantly from the Calvinist’s notion of God’s sovereignty."

It would take quite a while to flesh it out -which I won't do. But I take note of Arminius statement that God cooperates "unwillingly". The answer to that dilema lies in His eternal decree according to His perfect will to demonstrate the concept of "good and evil" within a closed enviornment never to be repeated. (Before He gets on with the good stuff for the rest of eternity. )

I do not believe that this position interferes in any way with the concept of God's predestining everything. I'm pretty certain though that my Calvinist friends will take me to task.

The scriptures most definitaly don't allow for the notion that God is the author of sin any more than that God is a divine spectator.

 

[EmSw]

No. It happened as He planned it to happen. If He hadn't decided to have His Son sacrificed, it never would have happened.

So I ask, which came first - His plan of the crucifixion, or His knowing how it would happen?