Why do Arminians...

[Skala]

No, it's not.


The words are different, which is obvious, and do have an overlap, as in:
all elections involve a choice, but very few choices involve an election.

There words are NOT different.

Dude, the word "ELECT" CAME FROM THE VERY WORD THAT MEANS TO CHOOSE SOMETHING

 

[stan1953]

Sometimes Calvinists do label those who practice eisegesis. It makes them easy to identify without using long descriptions. Some call them Arminians. I just call them synergists.

My point was that this label is from the RT side, NOT from those who debate against RT. There is no Arminian icon on CF, so why is there a Calvinist one if all are believers and Christians? I am NOT an Arminian, I don't follow doctrines of men, regardless of how close my beliefs may be to some man. By defining yourself as a Calvinist, it is no different than saying RCC or JW, IMO, and we all know they both have inherent errors in their doctrines.

 

[stan1953]

There words are NOT different.
Dude, the word "ELECT" CAME FROM THE VERY WORD THAT MEANS TO CHOOSE SOMETHING

DUDE! No it didn't and in the NT is defines who are Christians, not HOW they became Christians.

DOUGLAS HAMP states the following;

Thus when we read in 2 Peter: “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble” (2 Pet 1:10) – we know that Peter is talking to Jews and that their election has nothing to do with salvation. Therefore, this is not a Calvinistic call for us to somehow make sure that we have been chosen to eternal life! It is rather a reminder to the chosen people to embrace the fact that they were elected, chosen by God to be His special treasure. However, their election is by no means an absolute guarantee that they will inherit eternal life. Paul corroborates this fact so clearly in 2 Timothy: “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim 2:10) Note well that Paul must endure for the elect, the Jews, so that they too might be saved. As we have seen, election has nothing to do with salvation. Furthermore, election is generally a term used of the Jews, who are of course, the chosen people. This is confirmed yet again in Romans 11, where Paul, who is speaking about the Jews, states “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” (Rom 11:28)

​

IMO this is PROPER exegesis.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thanks for clearing up what you are referring to. I probably missed it earlier.

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13 NASB)

So are these that Paul refers to "elect"?

While they are, he wasn't describing them as elect in 2 Thess 2:13. He was simply noting on what basis God had chosen them for salvation: through faith in the truth.

Well, I would say so.

Well, that is your right.

Otherwise, there's no to to thank God for the choice.

Something's missing here. Please clarify.

If this was man's choice to believe, then we would be thanking man, not God.

Why would that be? Please elaborate, but it's absolutely not clear to me why anyone would believe that.

Is there any instance where the receiver of a priceless gift thanks themself for receiving the gift??? If not, how can your claim be proven? Because it makes no sense.

That is, unless you think chosen in this verse means something other than chosen.

I've always noted that God chooses who will be saved, and have given Scripture to back it up. So why would anyone think that I would think differently?

On what basis?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Could you please explain the difference between 'haireomai' and "eklegomai"? I'd like to know how that difference threatens what I believe.

The discussion has been going on for this long, and now this question??!! Really? Amazing. But, ok, here's the difference.

Eklegomai is translated as elect (verb), while haireomai is only translated as choose.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There words are NOT different.

Dude, the word "ELECT" CAME FROM THE VERY WORD THAT MEANS TO CHOOSE SOMETHING

I provided 2 Greek words; eklegomai and haireomai. Please provide evidence that these 2 words are related in the Greek.

 

[FreeGrace2]

DUDE! No it didn't and in the NT is defines who are Christians, not HOW they became Christians.

DOUGLAS HAMP states the following;

Thus when we read in 2 Peter: “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble” (2 Pet 1:10) – we know that Peter is talking to Jews and that their election has nothing to do with salvation. Therefore, this is not a Calvinistic call for us to somehow make sure that we have been chosen to eternal life! It is rather a reminder to the chosen people to embrace the fact that they were elected, chosen by God to be His special treasure. However, their election is by no means an absolute guarantee that they will inherit eternal life. Paul corroborates this fact so clearly in 2 Timothy: “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim 2:10) Note well that Paul must endure for the elect, the Jews, so that they too might be saved. As we have seen, election has nothing to do with salvation. Furthermore, election is generally a term used of the Jews, who are of course, the chosen people. This is confirmed yet again in Romans 11, where Paul, who is speaking about the Jews, states “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” (Rom 11:28)

​

IMO this is PROPER exegesis.

I like Doug Hamp. And what he said.

 

[Hammster]

My point was that this label is from the RT side, NOT from those who debate against RT. There is no Arminian icon on CF, so why is there a Calvinist one if all are believers and Christians? I am NOT an Arminian, I don't follow doctrines of men, regardless of how close my beliefs may be to some man. By defining yourself as a Calvinist, it is no different than saying RCC or JW, IMO, and we all know they both have inherent errors in their doctrines.

I don't follow the doctrines of men any more than you do. And I've never called you an Arminian. A synergist, yes. But that's because it's reflective of your theology. It just a description.

 

[OzSpen]

Sometimes Calvinists do label those who practice eisegesis. It makes them easy to identify without using long descriptions. Some call them Arminians. I just call them synergists.

So are you saying that Arminians = synergists = those who practice eisegesis?

 

[Hammster]

The discussion has been going on for this long, and now this question??!! Really? Amazing. But, ok, here's the difference.

Eklegomai is translated as elect (verb), while haireomai is only translated as choose.

What's the difference in the definitions?

 

[Hammster]

So are you saying that Arminians = synergists = those who practice eisegesis?

I've yet to see one who doesn't.

 

[stan1953]

I've yet to see one who doesn't.

The thing about pointing fingers is that there are three times as many pointing back at yourself.
This is another typical RT tactic rather than addressing the actual scripture.

 

[stan1953]

I don't follow the doctrines of men any more than you do. And I've never called you an Arminian. A synergist, yes. But that's because it's reflective of your theology. It just a description.

That is EXACTLY what you do, if not why label yourself a Calvinist? As usual you equivocate on the point I made. I'm beginning to believe you cannot have a genuine UNEQUIVOCAL discussion.

 

[Hammster]

The thing about pointing fingers is that there are three times as many pointing back at yourself.
This is another typical RT tactic rather than addressing the actual scripture.

He provided no scripture in his post to respond to.

 

[Hammster]

That is EXACTLY what you do, if not why label yourself a Calvinist? As usual you equivocate on the point I made. I'm beginning to believe you cannot have a genuine UNEQUIVOCAL discussion.

I call myself a Calvinist for easy reference. It's easier than saying "I'm a Christian who believes that man is radically depraved, that God elects unconditionally, that the atonement was limited to to those elect, that's there's an effectual call, and that God's saints will persevere to the end".

That's a mouthful. I'm not a Calvinist in the sense you think it means because I don't follow John Calvin any more than you follow men that you read. In fact, I've read very little of Calvin. So you can just refer to me as a monergist. I prefer that.

 

[OzSpen]

What's the difference in the definitions?

Well asked. That's exactly what I've been asking all along, but can't get a clear answer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't follow the doctrines of men any more than you do. And I've never called you an Arminian. A synergist, yes. But that's because it's reflective of your theology. It just a description.

It describes Paul as well, for his answer to the jailer, who asked what he MUST DO to be saved. And Paul commanded him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he would be saved.

Man believes, and God saves. 1 Cor 1:21

Does man's believing help God to save him? No, that is a red herring.

 

[stan1953]

He provided no scripture in his post to respond to.

Then what were you pointing out?

 

[FreeGrace2]

What's the difference in the definitions?

The difference between an election and a simple choice.

Are all choices an election? Yes or no.

We know that all elections involve choice.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I call myself a Calvinist for easy reference. It's easier than saying "I'm a Christian who believes that man is radically depraved, that God elects unconditionally, that the atonement was limited to to those elect, that's there's an effectual call, and that God's saints will persevere to the end".

I'd love to see any verse that actually says any of this.