Arminian God cruel and arbitrary

Mike,
I would encourage you to start forums on some of these verses if you believe that they teach what you say they mean (John 12:32;I John 2:2).

By the way, if John 12:32 means that he draws each and every individual, please go to the "JOHN 12:32" forum and provide evidence. It's one thing to provide a string of proof texts. It's another to actually "stick" with one text and prove your interpretation.

In Christ

 

First, you've missed the point about who God is and what His character is like. ALL, I repeat ALL orthodoxy defines God as an Uncaused Necessary Personal Being that is purely actual with no potential (e.g. no contingency in Him). As I posted earlier, the Arminian view, when properly understood, violates Theology Proper. One of the most frequent objections to Calvinism is that it is based on a "mistaken" understanding of God's nature. However, when you look at Arminian theology, you find this simply is not true. Every objection to Calvinism is just like every objection to theism. It can be turned around into an argument in favor of Calvinism, just as every argument against theism can be reversed. It's not "meaningless," talk. It's simply inconsistent and contradictory to say that God is "all-insert attribute here" and arrive at the conclusions we make and then have:

God anchoring His acts in other beings.

Allowing the choices of others to dictate His actions, and other such things.

The Armininian view of salvation implicitly denies the orthodox view of God. It is inherently contradictory to affirm a God who is purely actual without any contingency in Him and hold to Arminian soteriology.

God is not sovereign in the Arminian system. Man is sovereign.

Arminians say God is unjust if Calvinists are correct. ??? How can this be, given the Calvinist view of God. What is less just than God. Arminians would have God grounding salvation in man. If that is so, and man is the ground of saving acts, then THAT is unjust, because people have unequal backgrounds. For God to be just in the Arminian system, that would have to be the case.

The second paragraph needs more explaining. It makes no sense at all. I don't think you understand what we mean by natural ability and moral inability. You seem to be saying that, since man acts according to his sinful nature, it must be that he can't be held responsible for going to hell. That's a non-sequitar, a conclusion that does not follow logically from the premises. Because man acts freely (the will is free), but is a slave to sin, it's own nature, it sins and is thus morally responsible. Through natural revelation (Romans 1), we know that man has all the tools to logically conclude through either induction or deduction, that God exists and to know what God is like. The fact that Aristotle figured this out shows this to be true. However, because of sin, man rejects this and even works to actively supress the truth. Thus, man is culpable and morally responsible because he acts voluntarily in these ways.

Before you go telling us that we are the ones speculating, I suggest you tell the Arminians that they do the same. Many Arminians postulate a concept of libertine free will. This is pure speculation. Many Arminians claim God grounds election in His knowledge of who will believe in Christ and who will not. This is pure speculation as well. Arminians do far more speculating than Calvinsits do.

Yes, everybody has the ability to seek out God. The will is free. Calvinists do not deny that. We simply say they do not want to. Given the choice, they would choose a good thing, but not the Author of Good things. Just as God is free only to choose according to His own nature, so man is free to choose only according to his own nature. There is nothing good in man, thus, while he may choose good things, the heart of man is so tainted by sin and its effects he will never choose those things without some selfish desire. Those that say they seek God are seeking peace, fulfillment, and answers, but they are not seeking God Himself. God must be revealed to them for them to truly find Him. When this happens, so do find Him and others do not...Why? Because some want to and others do not. We simply affirm that since nobody wants him and the Scriptures even explicitly say that, the only way around it can be that God changes their hearts for them and then they find Him. They find Him because He first finds them. Regeneration precedes faith. If it didn't, then why do some choose Christ and others reject Him?

 

God is sovereign to do whatever He pleases, as long as it falls within the parameters of His Divine nature. In other words, God cannot lie to any human being because it is against and not within His holy nature.

God ordained that Adam have a will to decide whether or not to obey the Lord, and yet He remained sovereign. Sinners have a free will [Revelation 22:17f] and the Lord God sustained His sovereignty. 'Whosoever wills . . . ' will eternally remain the 'poster child,' if you will, signifying that God's love and justice reaches every and the worst sinner on planet earth. [I John 2:2]

Someone asked, "Why do some accept and some reject His ways?" Answer: In Matthew 13 God already has told us that some of the 'seed' the Word of God would not germinate or bring forth fruit unto salvation in human beings. But, thank God for verse eight where the seed ' . . . fell on the good ground.' Those who receive Christ [John 1:12] are those sinners who welcomed the Word of God and believed in His truth after being convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit [John 16:8a] of their need of Jesus, our Lord.

 

Hi Genembridges;
Let me explain something to you as best as I know how. I am not an Arminian or universalist or Pelagain. I follow no man but Jesus Christ

I'm sure you could find lots of Arminians here who would be more than happy to disagree with you about God's Sovereignty. How ever you have failed to look at your own theology to see if this true of Calvinism. For instance Calvinism dictates that a mans Salvation is determined through election. There is not one scripture that proves this at all. Calvinism states if a man is elected He is eventually saved God Has no choice because He elected Him randomly.I've already proved to you that election is universal. We have to make that election sure.
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

To be Sovereign is misunderstood by Calvinist they believe God has to direct everything as though man doesn't have the Ability to think for Him self.
God wants our Love if He forces that Love randomly on whom ever He chooses He will never have Love from man. Love is not forced but is given freely. To assume God would do such a thing suggest that God doesn't Love us. If God loves man He would want the Love that man can give Him willingly rather than creating in man a false Love. A love that is not free is not Love at all but is wishful thinking. So for the sake of God's Sovereignty you so adamatly want to defend you create for yourself a God that isn't Love. Love is not dominant. Love is an act of the will. It is something we have to do our selves through wanting to , Through desire.
The Bible describes Love which part of it do you disagree with; (From the ISV Bible)
1Co 13:4 Love is always patient, Love is always kind, Love is never envious Or vaunted up with pride. Nor is she conceited,
1Co 13:5 And never is she rude, Never does she think of self Or ever get annoyed. She never is resentful,
1Co 13:6 Is never glad with sin, But always glad to side with truth, Whene'er the truth should win.
1Co 13:7 She bears up under everything, Believes the best in all, There is no limit to her hope, And never will she fall.
Love IMHO is where Calvinism leaves off and truth begins.

I guess you didn't read my post Because if you had you would no doubt know that I'm not an Arminian, and you've just told all the Arminians what you wanted to say. If you read this post and pray about it you might find out that there is always room to rethink your theology. I would suggest that you do.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

Election on demand is nothing but a hypothetical view of faith. A demanded love from selected targets, meaning certain sinners, cannot be devotion to Christ because love must decide and return that inner devotion to God. Almighty God does not need love so much so, that He autocratically or by roulette selects a people for Himself.

Jesus calls for sincere belief in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The question is have we responded to so great a love as He offers to sinners--through His Son.

 

Absolutely, Ray, election on demand is an a hypothetical view...but Arminianism's view of election is precisely that. It grounds or anchors election in a person.

You continue to say that God is an autocrat (as if that's a bad thing). You continue to portray the Calvinist view of election as "roulette." Once more, Ray, and maybe you'll be given grace to understand it...

By saying that, you are saying that we believe election is random. IT IS NOT. It has a purpose. To be random it would have no purpose. What of reprobation. There is no corresponding act uncondtional reprobation. It is a passive act. Election is based on mercy. Reprobation is based on justice. Justice is about what people deserve. Thus, it isn't arbitrary. Salvation isn't about justice; it's about mercy. Condemnation is about justice, not mercy. Justice and mercy are different categories, that you seem to routinely confuse. You act as if God "should" act mercifully. However, that would be an oxymoron. To say God "should" act mercifully says that you believe God owes you something.

Election that is unconditional is the only thing that is truly just, Ray. It begins with everybody on an even footing. Conditional election begins with everybody on an uneven footing.

 

Mike writes:

they believe God has to direct everything as though man doesn't have the Ability to think for Him self.
God wants our Love if He forces that Love randomly on whom ever He chooses He will never have Love from man. Love is not forced but is given freely. To assume God would do such a thing suggest that God doesn't Love us. If God loves man He would want the Love that man can give Him willingly rather than creating in man a false Love. A love that is not free is not Love at all but is wishful thinking. So for the sake of God's Sovereignty you so adamatly want to defend you create for yourself a God that isn't Love. Love is not dominant. Love is an act of the will. It is something we have to do our selves through wanting to , Through desire.

Gene responds:

Yes, Mike, and none of us would love God at all apart from God changing our hearts. Paul wrote "Nothing good" dwells in us. Love is good. Therefore, we can't love God on our own. God changes us so that we can and do love Him.

OOPS, Mike, you made the usual big boo-boo, you said that Calvinists believe God "forces" His love on us and that He does so randomly. I ask again, based on Eph. 2, what could be LESS arbitrary than God? If God anchors salvation in something in each of us that is arbitrary, because it has God acting contingently. Contingent things with different backgrounds, temperaments, and environments all have different tendencies to believe. That is arbitrary. It is unjust, for the same reason. Not only that it has man forcing God to bend to his will, not the other way around. What is so hard about this idea of "arbitrariness." Romans 9 says clearly that God elects unconditionally so that He can show His mercy, power, and glory. Why? Because He is God and it is right for Him to do so. I'm sorry you think that God has to spell out for you His exact motives for what He does, but, that's the God you have to deal with. It's as if y'all don't want God to have one thing to Himself. You act as if God has no right to do something "for the good pleasure of His will." The implication that God "forces" Himself on a person in the Calvinist view is also untrue. A person accepts Christ VOLUNTARILY. He is given a new heart, he is regenerated. The use of force, implies coercion. A person accepts Christ because he now has the moral ability and desire to do so. He thus wants to accept Christ and has the ability to do it. Since this is a creative, or rather, recreative act of God he will do so. Will a person resurrected from the dead stay dead even after God brings him back to life? No, so it is with salvation. This is not force, it is mercy. God choose not to leave us dead and condemned. He acts mercifully and regenerates us. In response, we gladly believe. There is no coercion involved.


You have yet to show that Calvinists believe man doesn't have the ability to think for himself. No Calvinist denies this. To say we do from our soteriology is just a caricature, and it a non-sequitar. Man's will is free. His mind is not. This not a denial of natural ability. His lack of moral ability does not remove him from the thought process, because he always thinks and acts voluntarily.

You've not "proven" election is universal. All you've thus far done is provide a list of Scriptures for your point of view, none of which present a problem. As Southern said, if you feel that way about those Scriptures, then let's start a thread on each of them.

 

Gene M. Bridges,

While Calvinists teaches a strict and austere view of the Lord, Biblical theology teaches not an Unconditional Election but Election based solely on faith in Jesus. God provided the gift through His Son, and now makes the sinner the responsible person for his or her place in eternity. [John 3:16]

Your learned error apparently has you convinced, but the fact is that God would be unjust to spin His game of roulette. If you tell a person something long enough they will believe it to be truth. You know the concept.

What makes Biblical theology/Arminianism true is because we are all on the same footing when born into this life of sin. Jesus tells us through the Apostle John that His death and atonement is for all sinners. [I John 2:2] Any other belief is to set aside God's Word in place of human philosophy. Paul warned the church that after his death false teachers would bring into the Body of Christ, error in the form of human philosophy.

'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, {Augustian, Calvin and modern teachers like Drs. J. I. Packer, John Feinberg, Sproul and the heretic, Mr. Camping who is on radio} after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'

The New Century Version says, ' Be sure that no one leads you away with false and empty teaching that is only human, which come from the ruling spirits of this world, and not from Christ.'

If you gave a candy stick to only a couple of your grandchildren while denying the treat to the remainer of your precious grandchildren, they all would not be on an equal footing.

As a grandfather I remain loving, a person of justice as I offer each of my grandchildren a Christmas gift. They have never turned me down yet. Sinners turn down the gift of the Son because their nature is tainted by Original Sin which makes them self willed against the Lord God. Only the Holy Spirit can move them toward turning from their sins, to receive Jesus now and for eternity.

Agreed?

 

While Calvinists teaches a strict and austere view of the Lord, Biblical theology teaches not an Unconditional Election but Election based solely on faith in Jesus. God provided the gift through His Son, and now makes the sinner the responsible person for his or her place in eternity. [John 3:16]

Your learned error apparently has you convinced, but the fact is that God would be unjust to spin His game of roulette. If you tell a person something long enough they will believe it to be truth. You know the concept.

What makes Biblical theology/Arminianism true is because we are all on the same footing when born into this life of sin. Jesus tells us through the Apostle John that His death and atonement is for all sinners. [I John 2:2] Any other belief is to set aside God's Word in place of human philosophy. Paul warned the church that after his death false teachers would bring into the Body of Christ, error in the form of human philosophy.

'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, {Augustian, Calvin and modern teachers like Drs. J. I. Packer, John Feinberg, Sproul and the heretic, Mr. Camping who is on radio} after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'

The New Century Version says, ' Be sure that no one leads you away with false and empty teaching that is only human, which come from the ruling spirits of this world, and not from Christ.'

If you gave a candy stick to only a couple of your grandchildren while denying the treat to the remainer of your precious grandchildren, they all would not be on an equal footing.

As a grandfather I remain loving, a person of justice as I offer each of my grandchildren a Christmas gift. They have never turned me down yet. Sinners turn down the gift of the Son because their nature is tainted by Original Sin which makes them self willed against the Lord God. Only the Holy Spirit can move them toward turning from their sins, to receive Jesus now and for eternity.

Agreed? </font>[/QUOTE]Ray, you are so hung up on your perception of the word, you just can't see it. Roulette is ARBITRARY...it is RANDOM. To say that God elects from His sovereign will and is arbitrary is repugnant. You accuse God of being random? How can God be random and elect persons with a purpose? Answer: He can't. To say this is what Calvinist believe is both a lie and ignorant.

Was God leading Paul through his missionary journeys? Did He tell them where to go? If you say yes, then you believe in some kind of election, because God is telling His missionaries specifically where to go. That means that some people are going to get saved and others are not. Thus God, by controlling the very direction of the spread of the gospel is determining who will get saved and who will not, by determining who will hear the gospel and who will not.


It is also an oxymoron to say that biblical theology teaches an unconditional election and then ground election in the faith of man and not the grace of God. The faith of man is a condition if man is the one that produces the faith in himself. You require that man produces his own faith and thus rob God of His sovereignty. It implicitly places man at the center of salvation and not God. The teaching of unconditional election neither negates faith in Christ nor the grace of God. The teaching of conditional election does not negate faith in Christ, but it negates God's grace.

How can man exercise faith in Christ when there is nothing good in man? Exercising faith is a good thing, is it not? Thus it is contradictory to say that man has the moral ability to choose Christ and say that nothing good dwells in man apart from Christ.

Calvinists teach the atonement was actual, not potential? Ray, did Jesus really pay for our sins or did he merely create the potential for our sins to be paid for? What was the intent of the atonement?

You call certain men "heretics." Are you saying that Calvinists serve a false god? On what basis? Remember, God does predestine (Eph. 1:1-11), elects (Matt. 22:14; John 15:16; Eph. 1:4; Titus 1:1), and justify -- as Calvinists teach. Are you saying that these things are not of God?
Are Calvinists Christians? If not, on what basis do you state that they are not?
If Calvinists preach a false gospel, then how? They teach that Jesus died, was buried, and rose bodily from the dead per 1 Cor. 15:1-4. How is that a false gospel?

You write:
What makes Biblical theology/Arminianism true is because we are all on the same footing when born into this life of sin.

Ray, that is exactly what Calvinist theology teaches about man's state. However, Arminian theology grounds or anchors election in an act of man. All of us have different temperaments, come from different environments, and have different backgrounds. Some people are those more prone to believe than others. If election is grounded in man and not God only, then it is unjust. Human justice says everybody should be completely equal. If election is anchored in man, then not everybody is equal and election is much more prone to random factors.

In the Reformed perspective, God alone elects. Election is uncaused because God is uncaused. Arminianism has election being caused, because man is caused. If election is caused in a caused thing, it is not uncondtional as you say it is. That is simple logic, or do you believe faith and logic are exclusionary concepts?

Calvinists do not believe God grounds election in anything other than Himself. Thus, He can not be arbitrary. God is never arbitrary, God is never unjust. This is supported by Scripture, eg. Eph. 2. Just because God does not tell us anything more than the fact that He does this and that He grounds it in Himself and that He has a purpose in it, does not mean He is arbitrary. In fact, the very fact that He does tell us that much shows that He isn't "arbitrary."

How is uncondtional election unjust if God's wrath is satisfied for some at the cross and others in hell? Justice is satisfied. The only way something can be unjust is if God's justice goes unsatisfied.

You say that it is unjust because God is not electing everyone. That only works if Jesus really did pay for everybody's sins, in which case all should be saved. To say that election in this view is unjust implicitly means we all deserve a chance. Then that means that salvation is a matter of justice and not mercy. That also means that God owes us all a chance to be saved, in which case by not giving everybody a chance to hear the gospel, He is being unjust by holding anybody accountable for not believing...after all justice in grounded in the fact that God owes us a chance at hearing the gospel, so if people never get that chance and go to hell, then God is unjustly condemning everybody to hell, even if they don't hear the gospel. The only way around that attack on God's character is to say that justice is grounded in God and He is not unjust in doing that because all have sinned. If that is so, then election can't have anything to do with such a concept of justice as the one you put forth, and your attack on the Reformed perspective is completely unwarranted. To put it forth and be justified in it, you must embrace a concept of justice you seek to deny. Your charge is thus self-defeating and false. The same with your charge of arbitrariness.

 

Hi Genembridges;

You take this verse you presented;
Jer. 17:9, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?"
If we are made to be Christians as you claim You would think that If God changes a man's heart so that He might understand, that this new heart that is required in order to believe would at least be sin free, because God cannot, and will not live in Sin. Yet in order for a man to be regenerated the Holy Spirit has to enter into the mans heart in order to change it. This is what being born again is all about. Having the comforter with in. Calvinism claims that total depravity keeps us from believing and understanding the gospel. But this says differently.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.

Then along comes Augustine and makes an opposite understanding. Then he offers this in support of His claim Romans 3:10 always comes up. With out ever considering what Paul is talking about to begin with.
Rom 3:9 What, then, does this mean? Are we Jews any better off? Not at all! For we have already accused everyone, both Jews and Greeks, of being under the power of sin.
The following 10 verses are that accusation. It is ridiculous to assume this is something that Paul him self is saying is true but uses the accusations of a fool in the Psalms to show his point. A fool who is foolish enough to claim that there is no God.
Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
The fool is what Jews called sinners.

How ever Calvinism claims that since we are dead in sin we cannot respond to the calling of Christ without being enabled, because being dead is dead, the dead know nothing. An obvious comparison of physical death to spiritual death The two are not the same. How do we know what spiritual death is like. Luke16:10-31
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man were both very much aware and able to understand and converse both very conscious. Total depravity in short is not supported by scripture.

Romans 7:18-23 is part of a description of Paul wrestling with sin that is still present with him in his flesh. Again has nothing to do with this issue because at this time Paul is obviously saved and is suppose to be freed from sin. He is freed but needs to find the way out that God always provides when tempted.

1st Cor 2:14 Is speaking about those who are already spiritual;

1Co 2:13 We don't speak about these things in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, as we explain spiritual things to spiritual people.

These are known as the deeper things of God.

Eph 2:1-3 are already covered above;

Gene
I know you mean well and I certainly appreciate your willingness to share what you believe. If I may I'd like to offer this scripture as advice to anyone who feels they have examined themselves and found what they hoped. Right in the Middle of the Bible is some of the best bit of Knowledge I have ever come across in my life don't take my word for it take God's word for it;

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Until we read scripture with out the influence of man we are still going to have problems understanding what God's message to us really is. Please don't take my word for it, search the scriptures daily and soon you will know.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

The atonement is perfectly in place toward all sinners and is viable for anyone. His payment of sin before God Almighty was for all sinners as says, I John 2:2.

I will not say that all Arminians or Calvinists are saved, but I believe they are all trying to worship and understand the true God. Each side, at times, gets it wrong in their explanation of the Triune Godhead.

Yes, God has already predestinated the exact number of those who will have received Christ. But this does not lay at the feet of Jesus the responsibility for damning the majority of His created beings/sinners. The Spirit draws sinners to the Cross, and He has sovereignly made sinners responsible for their faith or lack thereof.

Five point Calvinist theologians, carelessly said, are heretical in their forced ideas on the Scriptures.

Anyone who truly believes in Jesus as only Savior, is a born of the Spirit Christian, one of the people of God, whether Calvinist or Arminian persuasion, in my mind and heart. The final judge is Jesus. [John 5:22]

I must say that Calvinism does 'despite to the Spirit of His grace and Person,' and is the poorest of explanations of the Word of God.

 

You take this verse you presented;
Jer. 17:9, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?"
If we are made to be Christians as you claim You would think that If God changes a man's heart so that He might understand, that this new heart that is required in order to believe would at least be sin free, because God cannot, and will not live in Sin. Yet in order for a man to be regenerated the Holy Spirit has to enter into the mans heart in order to change it. This is what being born again is all about. Having the comforter with in. Calvinism claims that total depravity keeps us from believing and understanding the gospel. But this says differently.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.

Then along comes Augustine and makes an opposite understanding. Then he offers this in support of His claim Romans 3:10 always comes up. With out ever considering what Paul is talking about to begin with.
Rom 3:9 What, then, does this mean? Are we Jews any better off? Not at all! For we have already accused everyone, both Jews and Greeks, of being under the power of sin.
The following 10 verses are that accusation. It is ridiculous to assume this is something that Paul him self is saying is true but uses the accusations of a fool in the Psalms to show his point. A fool who is foolish enough to claim that there is no God.
Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
The fool is what Jews called sinners.

How ever Calvinism claims that since we are dead in sin we cannot respond to the calling of Christ without being enabled, because being dead is dead, the dead know nothing. An obvious comparison of physical death to spiritual death The two are not the same. How do we know what spiritual death is like. Luke16:10-31
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man were both very much aware and able to understand and converse both very conscious. Total depravity in short is not supported by scripture.

Romans 7:18-23 is part of a description of Paul wrestling with sin that is still present with him in his flesh. Again has nothing to do with this issue because at this time Paul is obviously saved and is suppose to be freed from sin. He is freed but needs to find the way out that God always provides when tempted.

1st Cor 2:14 Is speaking about those who are already spiritual;

1Co 2:13 We don't speak about these things in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, as we explain spiritual things to spiritual people.

These are known as the deeper things of God.

Eph 2:1-3 are already covered above;

Gene
I know you mean well and I certainly appreciate your willingness to share what you believe. If I may I'd like to offer this scripture as advice to anyone who feels they have examined themselves and found what they hoped. Right in the Middle of the Bible is some of the best bit of Knowledge I have ever come across in my life don't take my word for it take God's word for it;

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Until we read scripture with out the influence of man we are still going to have problems understanding what God's message to us really is. Please don't take my word for it, search the scriptures daily and soon you will know.
May God Bless You;
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Mike, the problem I see is that you say that man is dead in sin and nothing good is in him and then turn around and say that man enables himself to have faith in Christ. You think spiritual death is solely relative to the grave. If that was so, then you are saying that when God said, "You will surely die," He was speaking of the grave and not sin's effect.

Calvinists do not deny that person's are aware. What you describe us as believing has to do with their ability to respond not their awareness. What you describe is "utter depravity," and nobody would disagree with you there. Total depravity is better called "radical" depravity, not "utter" depravity. Honestly, if that's what you think Calvinists believe, then you are misunderstanding the doctrine. Arminianism would have us believe that potentials actualize themselves. If man is dead in, and then why do some believe and others not? Pushed into a corner, their answer is that, well, if what you say is true, then they cause themselves to believe. That isn't so, because no potentiality can actualize itself. Only actuals can do that.

If we have a state of actuality giving rise to a corresponding state of actuality (faith) that results in a new creation, then you can only end up with dualism, which we all know is a false doctrine, so, if total depravity is what you say, then man in mortally wounded, not dead, and he has the ability to recreate himself. This is either dualism or an impossible self-caused being, (Because it has to exist and not exist simultaneously in order recreate or at least participate in its recreation, since your position is necessarily synergistic).

You mention Romans 7. You are aware, I hope, that the interpretation of which you write is, in fact, Augustinian. The Anti-Nicene fathers and many persons today think Paul was writing of and unregenerate person. However, citing it does nothing to strengthen the case for conditional election and resistible grace. In fact, on the opposite, citing it in that manner strengthens the Reformed position.

You also write, "Yet in order for a man to be regenerated the Holy Spirit has to enter into the mans heart in order to change it. This is what being born again is all about." You realize, Mike, that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and regeneration are NOT the same, don't you? Dattgog has discussed this at length in another thread already.

Augustine comes up with no contradiction of Romans 1:20. On the contrary, the entire theme of Romans 1 revolves around the exchange of the natural worship of God for the unnatural worship of self. Paul calls all sin idol worship. He then begins to explain, by chapter 3 how this is so, because man is dead in his sins. The fruit of the tree is bad? Why, because the tree itself is corrupt.

Bible scholars on both sides of this debate have always made a distinction between natural ability and moral ability. Arminians frequently charge the Reformed perspective with antinominianism, saying that their position would make man not responsible for his actions since he is not truly free.

That's nonsense. As I've already explained, man noncoercively chooses according to his sinful nature, and will never choose Christ Himself. This is free and voluntary.

Arminians assume without any support whatsoever that natural ability presumes moral ability. There is no Scripture to support this. This is a purely philosophical objection.
Statements in the Scripture like "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes”,” choose life" are clearly in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. It is therefore a false leap of logic to say that such statements show that natural ability assume moral ability. On the contrary, that is simply circular logic, because the only way the conclusion is true is if the premise is argued. It's a non-sequitar. In other words, "Natural ability assumes moral ability. The statements in Scripture prove it." God can not, by nature, use illogical reasoning. Arminianism must rely on such fallacies in order to prove it's objections to the Reformed tradition. Ultimately truth is logical. God is Truth. Thus God is logical. God requires faith of us, thus our faith must also be logical. If it is true that natural ability presumes moral ability, then it why does God issue commandments that He knows we can not possibly fulfill? It would make more sense for God to be accomodating to man. Note, this is exactly what liberal scholars teach, and, irony of ironies, theologically liberal scholars embrace some form of Arminianism without exception.

 

God has natural ability, in fact, He has all ability including your stated, 'moral ability.' God has all of this plus other attributes, and then don't forget that we are created after His likeness. Study Genesis 9:6 indicates that after the Flood all of us depraved sinners are still created after His likeness. [Also, John 1:9 & James 4:9] Jesus is sinless, but we like God have a mind, knowledge, volition, and freedom of the will, plus perhaps many more things.

You insult God if you think that God the Spirit cannot touch the heart of the lost sinner and that He has the ability to lead that person to the feet of Jesus, our Savior. The 'goodness of God leadeth to repentance.'

 

Amen-- from a 5-points of grace believer.

Bro. James

 

Hi Genembridges;
You gave scripture to support your belief, I showed you clearly where that support is flawed with scripture, and then you attempt to convince me with your words. That doesn't work with me. You should at least be respectful of the fact that I answered your post with scripture and showed you clearly why I disagree. Then you tell me that I said this;

I never said that because I never said that man needs to be enabled, Calvinism did. Man is quite capable of responding to the gospel. There is no scripture that says man cannot respond that is a Calvinism doctrinal issue and has nothing to do with what I said.

I disagree they claim that man in his natural state is dead in sin and therefore cannot see, hear, understand. or respond to the gospel. Your reference of Romans 3 would certainly imply that with out the whole truth of Romans 3:9

The word total is not less than the sum of all is it not. What you just said is a ridiculous as in "110%" in which there can be no such thing since 100% represents the entirety. There is no difference between utter and total they are both the same. The redefining of words will not resolve the issue.
As I have stated before I'm not an Arminian I do not believe in Total depravity or individual election.

I follow no mans Doctrine but that of Christ only. I am none the less anti- Calvinistic. There is not one pedal of what is called the tulip that I accept as absolute truth.

I do not believe man can come to Christ on his own but that doesn't mean that when that man hears the gospel that he cannot respond without regeneration. Man never lost his ability to respond and no scripture says that He did. This is a Calvinistic assumption and is not supported by scripture.

This is utterly ridiculous Man is not God and is not placing Himself on the same level as God by accepting an Invitation. This as I said before comes from a complete lack of understanding of who God is and what He is. If you do not understand what Love is then you will never understand what and who God is. Read 1st Cor 13.

I never said Paul was unregenerate in fact I said the opposite. I think you should try and comprehend more of what you read maybe this is why you misunderstand so much.

Purely a Calvinistic view which again is not my view.
As to the rest of your post I do not place my trust in man obviously you do. Maybe you can find some scripture that would refute what I have said. Until then.

May God bless you;
Mike

 

Sinners are not shy of moral understanding between the concepts of God vs. Satan, good from evil, and right from wrong. This means they while they are depraved they at not so depraved that the Spirit cannot reach them. This is because of my verses post in my writing above. Human beings as sinners are still created after the likeness of the Lord. While the Lord has perfection as to mind, will, conscience, love, justice, volition and caring, man also has these qualities to a lesser degree.

The Holy Spirit draws sinners to the forgiveness coming from the One Who died on the Cross for all sinners. [II Peter 3:9]

 

God has natural ability, in fact, He has all ability including your stated, 'moral ability.' God has all of this plus other attributes, and then don't forget that we are created after His likeness. Study Genesis 9:6 indicates that after the Flood all of us depraved sinners are still created after His likeness. [Also, John 1:9 & James 4:9] Jesus is sinless, but we like God have a mind, knowledge, volition, and freedom of the will, plus perhaps many more things.

You insult God if you think that God the Spirit cannot touch the heart of the lost sinner and that He has the ability to lead that person to the feet of Jesus, our Savior. The 'goodness of God leadeth to repentance.' </font>[/QUOTE]Ray, do you think God can sin? No. God is perfectly free. God can not sin for same reason He can not make a rock He can not lift, because it is not in His nature to do so. You insult God to say that being created in God's image means we have libertine free will. You agree that God can not sin, because His nature is good. Man's nature is evil, yet say he is capable of producing faith in himself, which is a good thing. Paul wrote "There is nothing good in me." If God who is good cannot do certain things because it would contradict His nature, how can you deny that man can not choose some things according to his nature?

I have NEVER said God can not touch the heart of a sinner and lead him to repentance, Ray. In fact, I and my brethren here have argued just the opposite. I have no clue where you're getting that.

You have confused natural ability with moral ability. The will is free, the mind is not. We each chouse according to our desires. Man can not choose Christ apart from the supernatural work of God's Spirit, because nothing nothing good dwells in man at all. Nobody has said man can not understand the difference between right and wrong. In fact, it is an indictment against man that he can and acts otherwise freely and volunatarily. He has the natural ability to understand God exists, but does not seek after God. Jesus himself said that it is impossible to be born again by the will of man. Man can not, on his own will his salvation. Faith is required in order to be saved. Man has faith, but he will not exercise it for Christ ON HIS OWN. This is what total depravity is all about. If you think he can do this on his own, you contradict Jesus.

 

Gene M. Bridges,

Gene, Who said this in John 5:40? You err because you do not know the Word of God. This Person's words were: 'And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.' Are we to blame God or man? Take an hour and you should figure this one out.

 

Man is quite capable of responding to the gospel. There is no scripture that says man cannot respond that is a Calvinism doctrinal issue and has nothing to do with what I said.

Mike, what does John say? John 1:12-13, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, WHO WERE BORN NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD." It is man who is deceitful (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20). Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by my Father, this is a universal negative proposition. This is a plain statement of universal inability. "Can" does not indicate permission, it indicates ability or power, Mike. To say no one can do this is to say, no one is able to do it.

I disagree they claim that man in his natural state is dead in sin and therefore cannot see, hear, understand. or respond to the gospel. Your reference of Romans 3 would certainly imply that with out the whole truth of Romans 3:9

No, Mike. Calvinists say they can hear, see, and understand the facts of the gospel, but they lack the moral ability to respond in a positive manner. Again, you are assuming that they are speaking of natural ability, not moral ability. Do you or do you not understand these distinctions?

This is utterly ridiculous Man is not God and is not placing Himself on the same level as God by accepting an Invitation. This as I said before comes from a complete lack of understanding of who God is and what He is.

I understand that God is purely actual without any contingency in Him. He can not violate the nature of an Uncaused Necessary Self-existent Being. I understand that your point of view implicitly grounds itself in man. It has God acting in a contingent manner. This is basic logic. Your view denies that God is purely actual without any potentiality in Him or the capacity for it, because that would mean God is not purely actual.

I understand that you believe man is mortally wounded not completely affected byto the radix of his being. He's not really dead. (That's the lie of the serpent, by the way, he's only on his way to the grave. He's still able...). Now, let's see if that makes sense. What must be true if that is to be true?

You can say that man is in a state of passive actuality with respect to his salvation. He's not completely dead and he has a natural ability. This makes salvation syngergistic. He can respond and he does respond, and he is regenerate. "Regeneration by/through faith." Scripture calls us "new creations" (indicative). Now, if we are new creations and we are participating with God somehow in our justification, since we add faith to the atonement and the Spirit'S "wooing" as Ray calls it, then we have have an active actuality actualizing partt of this creative process. That's TWO SEPARATE ACTUALITIES. 1 + 1 = 2. This is dualism.

The other alternative is to say we are potentialities, which requires we are truly dead in sin (a premise you seek to deny, but at least moderate Calvinists do embrace it). Now, we have a case of a potentiality actualizing with respect to faith, because the view requires syngergy, the actualization of faith to add to the atonement (if potential) or to appropriate the atonement (if the atonement is considered actual) plus the "wooing of the Spirit." This means that a potential is actualizing itself in the new creation, and that results in an impossible self-causation, because a potential is actualizing itself, in other words it is existing and not existing at the same time.

In both views, God is reacting as well. This has God acting contingently. That violates the principle of a Being of Pure Actuality with no potentiality in Him, because it would be contrary to such a Being's nature to act contingently to anything with respect to an ex nihilio act! You might say that God does this voluntarily, but that would still require God having a capacity for contingency, and that still violates the qualties of a purely actual Being, but let's assume that much can be possible. This isn't what the view of unconditional election teaches, Mike. The view ANCHORS or GROUNDS regeneration in faith. It GROUNDS election (and Scripture surely teaches that God elects (election is the Greek "eklektos." It is rendered as "elect" and "chosen." Strongs #1588.
Matt. 22:14, "for many are called [kletos], but few are chosen [eklektos]."
Kletos, "called, invited."
Matt. 22:24, "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect [eklektos]."
Matt. 22:31, "And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect [eklektos] from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."
Luke 18:7, "now shall not God bring about justice for His elect [eklektos], who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?"
Rom. 8:33, "Who will bring a charge against God’s elect [eklektos]? God is the one who justifies;"
Romans 16:13, "Greet Rufus, a choice [eklektos] man in the Lord, also his mother and mine."
Col. 3:12, "And so, as those who have been chosen [eklektos] of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;"
1 Tim. 5:21, "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen [eklektos] angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality."
2 John 1, "The elder to the chosen [eklektos] lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth,"
3 John 13, "The children of your chosen [eklektos] sister greet you." ). The ANCHORING of election outside of God and in man will ALWAYS violate both the idea that God elects and that man does not and it even more importantly destroys the idea of God being purely actual without any potentiality in Him. This can not be overcome, and there falls the entire soteriology. (This is why Arminians seek to change their theology of God...Open Theism is a prime example).


If you do not understand what Love is then you will never understand what and who God is. Read 1st Cor 13.


How is 1 Corinthians 13 relevant at all, here? God is light, God is love, God is Spirit. No problem. We believe and teach this. Are saying that you think that God is "dragging people kicking and screaming into God's kingdom" in our view? That would be unloving. I agree. However, we don't teach that at all. We teach they come voluntarily. If anything it would be just for God to condemn us all anyway, but He does not. It is loving for Him to elect some and not others, because that way He gets the greatest amount of glory. It would be very loving and very just for Him to save everybody too, but He does not so. Thus we conclude that one reason He does that is probably because He would not get the greatest amount of glory if He did. I tell you what present a thread on 1 Cor. 13 and let us take a look at it. I honestly would be interested in that. Thanks.


There is not one pedal of what is called the tulip that I accept as absolute truth.

So, you believe you can lose your salvation?


I never said Paul was unregenerate in fact I said the opposite. I think you should try and comprehend more of what you read maybe this is why you misunderstand so much.

No, apparently, you're the one that doesn't understand. I said that your interpretation of Romans 7 is the same interpretation of Augustine. You and he (and I) all hold to the same interpretation. The Anti-Nicene Fathers said that Paul was writing as an unregenerate man.


As to the rest of your post I do not place my trust in man obviously you do.

No, you do, because you have clearly said man is able to do something that he lacks the moral ability to do. I do not trust man, and I believe my salvation is monergistic. I chose Christ, but know what I was like before I came to Christ and how darkly I can dream...No, I trust God, because I know apart from Him changing my heart, I would not have believed. No, I trust Scripture, but my I often use logic to test my faith, because Scripture teaches that faith and logic are complementary processes and that logic exists as a concomitant of His existence, because absolutes exist. We are God's creations. We reason. Logic is the process of sound reasoning. Scripture teaches that God reasons. God does so logically, this is manifestly true, because it is axiomatic that truth does not contradict itself. God requires faith of us, therefore faith and logic are not contradictory processes. Perfect faith does not contradict logic and logic does not contradict faith. Arminian theology will always embrace one or more logical contradictions. Internally, it is self-existent, but the final test is the test against the theology of God.

We know from Scripture (too numerous to post) that God is pure actuality without an potentiality in Him. (Geisler). Arminianism, particularly with the doctrine of election grounded in man's innate ability to believe, has God acting contingently. This can not be, because it would contradict the nature of God. Arminianism must necessarily rely on such falsehoods as potentials giving rise to actualities and self-causation. These are logical fallacies that theism as a whole rejects. Arminianism can not be true, because at one or more points at least one of these fallacies must be embraced. For example, if election is based on faith in man and man is dead in sin as Scripture says, then a potential is actualizing itself, falling into the impossibility of self-causation. Arminianism thus says man is not truly dead, he is merely mortally wounded. However, this is not in Scripture. Arminians try to modify this and many will say that man is dead in sin but he still has the moral ability, because natural ability presumes moral inability. However, that's a non-sequitar and circular.


'