Arminian definitions...

Would the Arminians (or those who fight for the libertarian freewill of the creature) please define such terms as "election" and "predestination"?

These are biblical terms, and must be dealt with, so how do you define them, and let's talk about how the Scriptures use such terminology.

Theo

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you "LaymansTermsPlease", that was exactly what I was looking for. Now, join me in exegeting the passages pertinent to these articles.

1) We see from Romans 8:29 that:

Rom 8:29 "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;"

It seems Mr. Arminius would want us to believe that this passage should be rendered "what He foreknew" instead of "whom He foreknew". This term "prognosko" does not anywhere in the NT speak of events, only people, hence, this would seem to be a term of endearment.

2) For God to see something within' the individual, and based upon that, God elected "individuals who would ... believe", then this theory has rendered God a respecter of persons, in that He foresaw something within' the person.

As we all agree that God is not a respecter of persons, how would this theory line up with such passages as:

Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

(My Bible program of the NASB capitolizes OT qoutes, so please don't think I am shouting. hehehe)

Eph 1:11 "also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will"

I now these are broad strokes, but this may get the ball rolling for a really good discussion.

So, what thinketh ye???

Sola Fide,

Theo

 

Hello Skandelon,

Have I read Arminus' works in their intirety? No. Have I read him on the things pertinent to this discussion? Yes, and I don't feel to have mis-understood him, as you insinuate, but I'll be glad for you to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm glad there are sooooooo many things you would like to talk about, because I love to correspond.

For you too say "Arminians are not arguing that God foreknew "what" people would do", and yet in the same context say "What people did he foreknow? Those who would believe" is rather contradictory, wouldn't you say? If it is the act of belief that God's bases His election on, then guess what?

God does not base His election on any foreseen action of the individual. That is what my response conveyed. (Remember, the second part of my response?)

Again, if God does as you say, and "It is about God predestining believers (those who love God) to be conformed to his image.", then you have made God a respecter of persons. Please comment on my second point, for you have yet to explain how your theory has not made God a respecter of persons.

So, who is it that God "foreknew"? It is those that He would, by His own good pleasure, choose to transform from God-haters into God-lovers? What God saw in all humanity was revealed in the passage I gave:

Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

Please show me how your theory is not contradictory, and does not make God a respecter of persons.

Thanks,

Theo