Why do we ignore some scriptures?

[TheArtguy58]

If a man is drowning, but he is not aware that he is drowning, is it likely that he will know to call to the shore for help?

That is the essence of prevenient grace. The Holy Spirit calls to us and lets us know we in need of help. If we are blind enough to allow our selves to go under we have still used free will. Used it foolishly, but that is sometimes the price of freedom.

 

[PaulFan]

That is the essence of prevenient grace. The Holy Spirit calls to us and lets us know we in need of help. If we are blind enough to allow our selves to go under we have still used free will. Used it foolishly, but that is sometimes the price of freedom.

It is also the essence of Calvinism, that God destines man to salvation because man is too mired in sin to ask for help.

I thank you for your contribution to this thread, ArtGuy. You seem to have a good understanding of the things you speak about. That is refreshing.

 

[TheArtguy58]

It is also the essence of Calvinism, that God destines man to salvation because man is too mired in sin to ask for help.

I would have less of a problem with Calvinism if it did not hold the idea that God chooses only some to be saved and condemns all others. To me that is not the God of love that I know.
Of course I also have a real problem with predestination in general, it isn't an idea that I personally can even partially accept. In my life I was nudged by prevenient grace to seek the Lord but it is by my will, my free will that I ask for his grace and his help as I seek to become a better Christian. I don't deserve this grace but no one does. and if I prove to be unworthy he is free to reject me.
And just as it is by my free will I can seek his understanding I am also free to reject his grace and ultimately suffer the consequences.

This has been an interesting thread, but it's making me think a lot.

 

[PaulFan]

This has been an interesting thread, but it's making me think a lot.

Me too, ArtGuy.

When you get some free time, look up C.H. Spurgeon on your favorite search engine and read some of his sermons. He is a Calvinist from England who began preaching when he was 17 years old. Through his sermons one gets an understanding of his position on P.D. He is gracious to those who believe in Free-will and says they are equally deserving of God's grace. In other words, a belief in Arminianism (Free-will) or Calvinism (predestination) is not critical for our salvation.

 

[Big Drew]

It is also the essence of Calvinism, that God destines man to salvation because man is too mired in sin to ask for help.

Wesley said that his theology was "but a hair's breadth from Calvinism."

 

[ContraMundum]

That is not accurate. I know "some Christians" who believe they are in charge, that they chose God and that it was completely due to their free will. After that, they believe that God's grace comes into play. They will claim that God is sovereign, but that God allows for free will, even though that takes from God's sovereingity. In short, they believe that the glory belongs to the human for their salvation. I believe that is called Pelagianism.

Actually, the term "Pelagianism" is thrown around way too much by the modern Calvinist camp. The idea that man chooses his own salvation is not a tenet of Pelagianism at all. It can be seen by some as a ramification of it, but again, that's disputable.

It is used as a way to label one's opponent a heretic, and is not fitting when discussing the personal beliefs of people who may just be ignorant.

It may be found in "both" systems, but it is not taught in the Methodist Church I attend. At the church I attend, we use teaching materials endorsed by the greater UMC and no one teaching these classes (usually our pastors) has ever claimed that we should believe in predestination except when speaking of the Jews as the "Chosen" people.

That would also be an error, because the Jews being chosen is part of election.

In all other instances, scriptures mentioning predestination are ignored or spun to agree with only free-will without predestination of salvation.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

A seeming paradox. However, as a human, I do not profess to understand the mind of God and am willing to say that what seems like a paradox to man might be completely routine to our omniscient God.

You misunderstood me I think.

He hardened pharoah's heart. And when Saul walked away form his meeting with Samuel, God "changed Saul's heart". So, if we accept the premise that God changes our hearts for his own reasons in these cases, then predestination of man's salvation does not seem too far of a stretch.

God can harden one's heart, but does his hardening override the chance to repent? When I grew up in the synagogue, we were taught that Pharoah's heart was hardened but never to the point of him having no free will left. I still believe this to this day. God was giving Pharoah what he wanted.

Without free-will, God cannot be just? I agree that, to the human mind, it does seem so at first glance. OR, is it that we are projecting our flawed humanity on our omnipotent and omniscient God by telling God what is justice and what is not justice?

OK....let me help you see this, because this is not about man's fallen and darkened human reason constructing stories to make sense of it all, this is about God's revealed character according to His self-disclosure in scripture.

The first point is that God's character is just:

Dt. 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

The second point is that God's creation reflects His nature and character. He created the universe for that reason.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

See Also Ps. 19 etc.

Therefore, if God is just, then His creation must reflect and display His justice, and the scriptures say it does.

If one believes that some are chosen by God for salvation and others not, and that God manipulates that person to believe, there is no justice. That person's doctrine is wrong, because it goes against God's character and against His purpose in creation. A person who is left in sin can give account to God why he never repented- because God did not call him to repentance. Rather, God was a bystander who let the man remain in sin when he could have stopped him. In other words, without free will, salvation and damnation, sin and holiness are God's fault. This goes against His character, and is a renaissance heresy invented by a lawyer.

Calvinism is based on a non-scriptural, pagan philosophy- determinism. It is found first of all in pagan literature. There are (now) in Christian thought two types of determinism, soft (where God manipulates the will to compel the human to do His bidding) and hard (where the human is under the illusion that he has made a choice, but God is forcing His will all the time) In both instances, humans are ultimately not accountable for their own actions. God cannot judge their actions righteously because he made them do it.

When one reads the Torah, one soon realises that the whole of the Law is directly connected to man's free will. There are abundant choices to make, every law being ultimately a choice.

However, man is fallen, and his free will is inclined toward the sinful. He cannot by his own strength be saved. So, what does God do about it? Wesleyans say that God's grace changes a man's heart enough to let him see his sins, and that brings about repentance, and the repentant heart is regenerated by a gracious act of God. Man cannot regenerate himself, God does it. Without this act of grace man would die in his sins, unable to see them and thus never able to repent of them.

The Calvinist says that God chooses some to salvation, and those he forces or manipulates their hearts to have faith. God just regenerates the ones He's picked to save, that leads them to repentance and rest are either left to their sins (as some Calvinists say) and the others are chosen to damnation (as other Calvinists say) The minute you question these people about this, they throw the old "who are you oh man?" line at you, completely abusing the scriptures and ignoring the violent offence to God's character that their untenable and unscriptural doctrine teaches.

Now, you are thinking "what about those texts that seem to imply that God determines man's fate?". Well, let's look at them in the context of His character, His justice, His perfection, His love and so forth, and in the context in which they are given. You can offer some, and if you like I will respond. I will give you the time.

I believe it comes down to the subject of original sin. God is not responsible for sin.

If you believe in any form of determinism, then He is responsible for sin, even the fall itself.

For some reason, God holds man accountable for his own sins.

Because He created us in His image, with free will. Without free will He could not hold us accountable because He is just.

As the scripture says, no one of us is good, not even one. Man seeks evil continually.

Yes, the free will is corrupted, man cannot save himself, his desire is inclined toward evil. This is true. We believe in fallen nature, but not to the point where an unregenerate man cannot hear God (as some extreme Calvinists and Lutherans claim) or respond to Him. The fallen sinner can hear and respond to God even in His fallen state (see Gen. 3:9-10). The image of God remains in the fallen man (this ultimately is why sins against each other are damning, because we insult and attack His image in each other)

So, it comes down to whether the glass is half empty or half full. If you are a half-empty person, then God is terrible for predestining (hardening the hearts) of the unrepented sinner and that just doesn't seem acceptable to some men/women. But if you are a half-full person, then God is showing great restraint and mercy by saving for himself, a remnant, by predestining them to salvation rather than letting the whole lot expire in their sin. God has shown us examples in the scripture where he has done this before such as when he saved a remnant of 7000 Jews for himself.

The whole premise upon which you base this dilemma is wrong. Start afresh.

The idea that predestination is carried out by God through manipulation of the human heart is not scriptural. Predestination is more about plan than activity. The term means to "draw a boundary around" or "mark out". That's all. The Bible says that believers are predestined (marked out, given a path, a boundary) to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Pretty simple. If you are a Christian, a believer, you are predestined to become like Jesus- that is the plan for you. This speaks nothing about monergism or free will or any of that paradigm that confuses so many American Christians today.

 

[ContraMundum]

Wesley said that his theology was "but a hair's breadth from Calvinism."

Indeed he did. That is because he believed in total depravity and that God's grace alone acts on sinners to save them. Occasionally he went even further on the Calvinist trail.

There's a really interesting read below that compares Wesley, Calvin and the modern Wesleyan doctrinally.

"An interview with Wesley, Calvin, and a modern Wesleyan"

 

[Big Drew]

Indeed he did. That is because he believed in total depravity and that God's grace alone acts on sinners to save them. Occasionally he went even further on the Calvinist trail.

There's a really interesting read below that compares Wesley, Calvin and the modern Wesleyan doctrinally.

"An interview with Wesley, Calvin, and a modern Wesleyan"

Thanks, hadn't seen that before...I did see something similar, on John Piper's blog where there was a short conversation between Wesley and Charles Simeon.

PIPER FRIDAY – Charles Simeon and John Wesley

 

[ContraMundum]

Thanks, hadn't seen that before...I did see something similar, on John Piper's blog where there was a short conversation between Wesley and Charles Simeon.

PIPER FRIDAY – Charles Simeon and John Wesley

Great link- thanks brother.

 

[PaulFan]

Actually, the term "Pelagianism" is thrown around way too much by the modern Calvinist camp. The idea that man chooses his own salvation is not a tenet of Pelagianism at all.

From wikipedia: Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), .....It is the belief that original sin did not taint Human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid.

That sounds very much like Arminianism to me. Now, I am not saying such a belief is heretical. Well, at least if you have a full understanding of the scripture and choose not to dismiss or ignore Romans 8:28-30

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together h for good, [7] for i those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he j foreknew he also k predestined l to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be m the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also n justified, and those whom he justified he also o glorified.

It is used as a way to label one's opponent a heretic, and is not fitting when discussing the personal beliefs of people who may just be ignorant.

I'm not claiming any such thing, but I am telling you and anyone who reads this that modern views on free-will give glory to man for their salvation and not to the Father. You can word it however you wish but if you think that you are doing the choosing, then your roots are grounded in Pelagianism.

God can harden one's heart, but does his hardening override the chance to repent? When I grew up in the synagogue, we were taught that Pharoah's heart was hardened but never to the point of him having no free will left. I still believe this to this day.

Where does it say that in the scripture?

If one believes that some are chosen by God for salvation and others not, and that God manipulates that person to believe, there is no justice.

Who says it is not justice? If all mankind deserves death because we are all in a state of sin and will not choose God, then is it not just that God will allow his will to be done, that the unjust are judged as so? And therefore, if God saves a remnant for himself by predestining them to salvation (because they lack the ability to choose God on their own), then isn't that an act of mercy and NOT injustice?

Calvinism is based on a non-scriptural, pagan philosophy- determinism.

Are you calling the Apostle Paul a pagan? He did speak of predestination, no? Why do you wish to ignore this in order to believe as you do? Why do you not accept the reality of what the scriptures say?

It is found first of all in pagan literature.

That is a very broad statement. In debate 101, I was taught to avoid words such as, always, all, everyone, etc. They are usually reflective of our wishes rather than reality.

There are (now) in Christian thought two types of determinism, soft (where God manipulates the will to compel the human to do His bidding) and hard (where the human is under the illusion that he has made a choice, but God is forcing His will all the time) In both instances, humans are ultimately not accountable for their own actions. God cannot judge their actions righteously because he made them do it.

Can the clay question the potter? I go back to scripture for my retort.

Romans 9 - 19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

When one reads the Torah, one soon realises that the whole of the Law is directly connected to man's free will. There are abundant choices to make, every law being ultimately a choice.

I have not said that free-will is non-existent. Somehow, predestination and freewill seem to coexist in the scripture. I do not choose to question how as I realize there are some answers the bible does not give.

However, I do notice that those who wish the glory for salvation to belong to man, that is, those who believe they freely chose their salvation by correctly choosing to follow Christ without any "assistance" from God, to them I ask "Why do you ignore the scripture in order to maintain this belief?".

Think about it. May God bless you.

 

[PaulFan]

Wesley said that his theology was "but a hair's breadth from Calvinism."

Yes, I've heard that. I wonder if he said this after he had the falling out with his friend George Whitefield, a co-founder of Methodism and, also, a believer in predestination?

 

[Big Drew]

Yes, I've heard that. I wonder if he said this after he had the falling out with his friend George Whitefield, a co-founder of Methodism and, also, a believer in predestination?

It's recorded in a letter to John Newton in 1765...when did he have his falling out with Whitefield?

 

[PaulFan]

It's recorded in a letter to John Newton in 1765...when did he have his falling out with Whitefield?

I'm not sure of the date and I don't recall the source, but it was about a sermon Wesley wrote and was to preach about Predestination as a heresy. Whitefield, a believer in PD, asked Wesley not to preach this sermon, but Wesely did so anyway. This resulted in some hard feelings, evidently. It is said the two later kept up their friendship and Wesley tempered his anti-PD feelings later in life, probably due to his good friend, Whitefield.

I'll attempt to source this in the next day or so.

Edit: Source
ht tp://en.wikipedia_dot_org/wiki/John_Wesley

Stevens, Abel (1858). The History of the Religious Movement of the Eighteenth Century, called Methodism: Volume I. Carlton & Porter. pp. 155.

Whitefield inclined to Calvinism. In his first tour in America, he embraced the views of the New England School of Calvinism. When in 1739 Wesley preached a sermon on Freedom Of Grace, attacking the Calvinistic understanding of predestination as blasphemous, as it represented "God as worse than the devil," Whitefield asked him not to repeat or publish the discourse, as he did not want a dispute. Wesley published his sermon anyway. Whitefield was one of many who responded. The two men separated their practice in 1741. Wesley wrote that those who held to unlimited atonement did not desire separation, but "those who held 'particular redemption' would not hear of any accommodation."[18]
Whitefield, Harris, Cennick, and others, became the founders of Calvinistic Methodism. Whitefield and Wesley, however, were soon back on friendly terms, and their friendship remained unbroken although they travelled different paths.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

The idea that Wesleyans don't believe in predestination, election and so forth is complete nonsense. We do, we just don't believe the same things about them as the modern-day Calvinist does (and they are full of baloney when they present our position anyway. Calvinists never accurately portray the positions of their opponents)

In a nutshell, in my research, I found the Wesleyan-Arminian position to be most like the whole of scripture and the one in step with the Hebraic and the Church Fathers.

Here's why:

a) In the OT, election is corporate for purpose. A people or nation are elected to a purpose. There may be an argument for an individual elected for an earthly purpose too, but it's never an election to salvation. There is no valid argument that says the NT changes the corporate nature of election to individual election to eternal salvation. In other words, the Bible remains consistant if you take the Arminian position.

b) In Jewish OT thought, predestination means that if you set off on a path, you will come to the natural end of that path. The path predestines you to its destination. If you get off the path, your destination will be different. OTOH, The idea of determinism which says your actions are determined by a higher power is found in Greek philosophy. There is no valid reason to say that the Jewish paradigm changes to a Greek one in the NT. Stick with the Jewish idea, and it all makes sense.

c) Free will is scriptural, whether you like it or not. It has its limits, ordained by God, but it is there. Read the OT. That's why there is a such thing as a "Freewill" offering.

d) In theology, it is proper to establish a knowledge of the character of God and use that as the interpretive principle when exegeting scripture. Knowing that God is love, and that He is just, one cannot interpret the Bible and come to Calvinist conclusions. Calvinism goes against the nature of God on love and justice.

If you are interested in looking at this further, the Society of Evangelical Arminians has an excellent summary here. (caveat: not all Wesleyans believe in God's activity being conditioned on foreseen faith. Some of us hold the older view that He appoints the means of grace etc)

As for prevenient grace, the scriptures cite many examples. Jer 31:3, Jn 16:7-11, Rom 2:4, 10:14-17, Titus 2:11

It sounds as if you have studied the works of H. Orton Wiley. Am I correct?

Tom

 

[ContraMundum]

It sounds as if you have studied the works of H. Orton Wiley. Am I correct?

Tom

Not really- I have seen his works and maybe referenced them once in seminary but that was in the 90's. Does his work hold similar views to me?

 

[ContraMundum]

From wikipedia: Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), .....It is the belief that original sin did not taint Human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid.

That sounds very much like Arminianism to me.

Read carefully. No one here is saying that man can choose without Divine aid. Arminius was very careful to say that God's grace comes before all salvation.

Sounds to me like you don't really know Arminianism. It sounds like you have been told about it by an opponent but never really read his works yourself. Am I right?

Now, I am not saying such a belief is heretical. Well, at least if you have a full understanding of the scripture and choose not to dismiss or ignore Romans 8:28-30

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together h for good, [7] for i those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he j foreknew he also k predestined l to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be m the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also n justified, and those whom he justified he also o glorified.

Yes, we all believe that scripture. We don't interpret it like Calvin. He was wrong, but that's for another time. If you haven't read a proper Wesleyan understanding of that I can recommend Joseph Beet's, but it won't be easy to find because he is not promoted by the current Calvinist evangelical mafioso.

I'm not claiming any such thing, but I am telling you and anyone who reads this that modern views on free-will give glory to man for their salvation and not to the Father.

Nonsense. All glory for man's salvation goes to God. I don't know if you actually have read anything that has been said to you.

You can word it however you wish but if you think that you are doing the choosing, then your roots are grounded in Pelagianism.

Have you even read the works of Pelagius or Wesley for yourself????
Wesleyanism is not decision theology, and it is not Pelagian. Do you mind not throwing neo-Calvinist apologetic propaganda around like it is true?

Where does it say that in the scripture?

I was sharing an anecdote. Why do I need scripture for a personal anecdote?

Who says it is not justice? If all mankind deserves death because we are all in a state of sin and will not choose God, then is it not just that God will allow his will to be done, that the unjust are judged as so? And therefore, if God saves a remnant for himself by predestining them to salvation (because they lack the ability to choose God on their own), then isn't that an act of mercy and NOT injustice?

You need to go back and read what I actually said. All men need salvation. All men cannot save themselves. They cannot choose for themselves to accept the Gospel. God's grace comes first, last and always.

The injustice is about determinism, which is the underlying philosophy of Calvinism. Do you know much about determinism? Because I have said a lot about it and you don't seem willing to respond to that.

Are you calling the Apostle Paul a pagan? He did speak of predestination, no? Why do you wish to ignore this in order to believe as you do? Why do you not accept the reality of what the scriptures say?

Paul was not a pagan. Some of his interpreters in the Calvinist vein are. That's my point. Predestination is not determinism in the sense that Calvinists use it. That is also my point. They are using Augustinian, Calvinist, Western, Medieval forensic definitions and paradigms to interpret ancient Jewish theology. Not a good start.

That is a very broad statement. In debate 101, I was taught to avoid words such as, always, all, everyone, etc. They are usually reflective of our wishes rather than reality.

I'm not debating you in some class, ok? This is discussion on an internet forum, there are no prizes being awarded here. My comments are easily verifiable if you wish to do the work. I make broad statements when I am unsure of the knowledge of the person reading. I keep it so that most people can get the gist.

Can the clay question the potter? I go back to scripture for my retort.

Romans 9 - 19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

I agree with all of this...what's your point? I know the standard Calvinist interpretation of this text...and it's complete rubbish. I hope you're not seriously thinking I haven't read or studied the book of Romans before and need to be shown this text, hoping to spring some theological surprise on me. You're not, right?

I have not said that free-will is non-existent. Somehow, predestination and freewill seem to coexist in the scripture. I do not choose to question how as I realize there are some answers the bible does not give.

Yes. Good. You're almost there. Luther came to this conclusion also. I agree with Luther. This matter is the cross of the theologian. But I think there are points in scripture on this matter that we can be 100% sure of, and Luther, constrained by his Augustinian background, failed to understand the Hebraic paradigm of free will and God's sovereignty. Hence, his book "Bondage of the Will" which discusses this is riddled with errors and holes, even though it is hailed by Lutherans and the Reformed.

However, I do notice that those who wish the glory for salvation to belong to man, that is, those who believe they freely chose their salvation by correctly choosing to follow Christ without any "assistance" from God, to them I ask "Why do you ignore the scripture in order to maintain this belief?".

Think about it. May God bless you.

I have thought about this argument about somehow free will taking away from God's glory, and I dismiss it as purely emotive, without basis in fact, scripture, or logic. It's an appeal to shame, guilt and ultimately it is unscriptural. Calvinists use it to gain disciples. The fact is that God can save us any way He likes, with our free will, without it, whether His decree is that we could choose or His decree is that He alone manipulates us, it is all Him. No matter which way you turn the theological discussion, all glory ends up with God, because it is His world and He makes the rules. The rankest decision theologian would still have to admit that all the glory would go to God.....so can we stop with this argument about trying to steal glory from God now?

 

[Big Drew]

I'm not sure of the date and I don't recall the source, but it was about a sermon Wesley wrote and was to preach about Predestination as a heresy. Whitefield, a believer in PD, asked Wesley not to preach this sermon, but Wesely did so anyway. This resulted in some hard feelings, evidently. It is said the two later kept up their friendship and Wesley tempered his anti-PD feelings later in life, probably due to his good friend, Whitefield.

I'll attempt to source this in the next day or so.

Edit: Source
ht tp://en.wikipedia_dot_org/wiki/John_Wesley

Stevens, Abel (1858). The History of the Religious Movement of the Eighteenth Century, called Methodism: Volume I. Carlton & Porter. pp. 155.

Whitefield inclined to Calvinism. In his first tour in America, he embraced the views of the New England School of Calvinism. When in 1739 Wesley preached a sermon on Freedom Of Grace, attacking the Calvinistic understanding of predestination as blasphemous, as it represented "God as worse than the devil," Whitefield asked him not to repeat or publish the discourse, as he did not want a dispute. Wesley published his sermon anyway. Whitefield was one of many who responded. The two men separated their practice in 1741. Wesley wrote that those who held to unlimited atonement did not desire separation, but "those who held 'particular redemption' would not hear of any accommodation."[18]
Whitefield, Harris, Cennick, and others, became the founders of Calvinistic Methodism. Whitefield and Wesley, however, were soon back on friendly terms, and their friendship remained unbroken although they travelled different paths.

Thanks for the info...he definitely made that statement after, then.

Makes sense...I imagine a lot of us start out vehemently opposed to Calvinism until we get all the facts and read the scriptures. I was like that...but over the last several months I've been studying the scriptures and reading some books on Reformed theology...I don't agree with all of it, but much more of it makes sense than it did before...and I realize, like Wesley, that I'm not as far away from them as I once thought I was.

 

[jacks]

Just to clarify some points on Arminianism, (which some of you have mentioned.) I think it is in line with many of Wesley's views.

Arminianism holds to the following tenets: (From somewhere in Wikipedia)

• Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation however, They possess free will to accept or reject salvation.
• Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
• No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation - known as predestination.
• God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
• Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
• God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
• Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent, unrepented-of sin.[2]

To me this blends many of the discrepancies between pre-destination and free will. It is also nicely inclusive.

 

[PaulFan]

Read carefully. No one here is saying that man can choose without Divine aid. Arminius was very careful to say that God's grace comes before all salvation.

Sounds to me like you don't really know Arminianism. It sounds like you have been told about it by an opponent but never really read his works yourself. Am I right?

I'm sure you think so.

Yes, we all believe that scripture. We don't interpret it like Calvin.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. How many ways can you interpret that quote? It is very direct. The only way to not interpret it as predestination is if you "twist" the meaning of if.

He was wrong, but that's for another time. If you haven't read a proper Wesleyan understanding of that I can recommend Joseph Beet's, but it won't be easy to find because he is not promoted by the current Calvinist evangelical mafioso.

Hmmmm. I hope we have not resorted to name calling. That is a failed strategy if you wish to win someone over.

Nonsense. All glory for man's salvation goes to God.

Unless you believe you have chosen without the assistance of God. And, I'm sorry, many Arminians and Semi-Pelagians hold such a view in direct opposition to the scripture. And some people apologize for them.

I don't know if you actually have read anything that has been said to you.

Oh, certainly I have read what you have written. It's just that your argument has failed to persuade me.

Have you even read the works of Pelagius or Wesley for yourself????

Well, you do realize, I hope, that because Pelagius was deemed a heretic, not much of his work has been saved. Most of what we know comes from the surviving apostolic church. As for Wesley, of course I have read Wesley. I read his sermons quite often. How do you think I came to my conclusions? I am a man who thinks and makes decisions, not someone who can be told how to think.

Wesleyanism is not decision theology, and it is not Pelagian. Do you mind not throwing neo-Calvinist apologetic propaganda around like it is true?

In your world, sir, I am sure you believe you have a right to tell someone who disagrees with you, to think like you. But, that is not the world I live in.

You need to go back and read what I actually said. All men need salvation. All men cannot save themselves. They cannot choose for themselves to accept the Gospel. God's grace comes first, last and always.

I have read what you have written. I apologize if I lack the time to reply to every point you have made. I understand the position as you have stated it. I have heard it expressed many times. I lived it for the first years I was a Christian up until the point I asked my Methodist pastor who the "elect" were that Paul was speaking of. From that point on, I took classes, read books,listened to both Arminians and Calvinists. What I realized was that, to hold an Arminian position, quite simply, you MUST ignore much of the scripture. That is factual and no one has been able to convince me yet because they always say "We interpret it a different way". That is nonsense. Paul was speaking of predestination and some choose to ignore him on this point. I do not.

The injustice is about determinism, which is the underlying philosophy of Calvinism. Do you know much about determinism? Because I have said a lot about it and you don't seem willing to respond to that.

Yes, I know what determinism is and predeterminism. I have already spoken of this in a previous post.

Paul was not a pagan. Some of his interpreters in the Calvinist vein are.

That is utter nonsense. That is just an attempt to sully the reputations of those who disagree with you, IMO. YOu will notice that I have remained careful to not call anyone on the free-will side "pagans" or "heretics", aside from Pelagius.

You have written more than I have time to respond to at the moment. Thank you. I do enjoy the back and forth and I am learning from you. I appreciate the time you are taking to express your views.

God bless you.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Hmmmm. I hope we have not resorted to name calling. That is a failed strategy if you wish to win someone over.

I don't see ContraMundum resorting to name calling. He is simply saying that when Calvinists present Wesleyan theology and then seek to refute it, that what they present as Wesleyan usually isn't. And presently the largest number of publishers out there tend to be Calvinist or Reformed. So, finding works that truly present the Wesleyan point of view can be rather difficult today unless you know where to look for them. Even when they aren't being intentional in squeezing out Wesley-Arminian theology, their own natural bias means that books coming from a Reformed background get a better hearing and hence a more than equal chance of being published compared to something coming from a different point of view. And when you turn to Christian radio the landscape is even more unbalanced. The idea of a "Calvinist evangelical mafioso" isn't to label them as criminals, these are all good brothers in Christ. But there is a family nature to the publishing and media world (attend a CBA convention if you don't already get that), and that inner "family" controls who does and who does not have opportunity to get their voice heard.

Unless you believe you have chosen without the assistance of God. And, I'm sorry, many Arminians and Semi-Pelagians hold such a view in direct opposition to the scripture. And some people apologize for them.

Here is an example of someone putting words in the Arminian's mouth. We don't hold that we make a choice wtihout the assistance of God. That indeed is what prevenient grace is all about. Where it not for God's grace that goes before salvation, we couldn't even say YES to his offered (but not compelled) salvation.

In your world, sir, I am sure you believe you have a right to tell someone who disagrees with you, to think like you. But, that is not the world I live in.

How ironic. You've told us, not just that you disagree with our interpretation of the scriptures, but that we were wrong. You say things like:

What I realized was that, to hold an Arminian position, quite simply, you MUST ignore much of the scripture. That is factual and no one has been able to convince me yet because they always say "We interpret it a different way". That is nonsense. Paul was speaking of predestination and some choose to ignore him on this point. I do not.

And then you accuse someone else of "tell[ing] someone who disagrees with you, to think like you."


How strange also that you identify yourself as a United Methodist and ContraMundum does not, and yet he is the one who has the better understanding of Wesleyan theology, while you reject what little you do understand.