Common Misrepresentation of Arminianism

Wait, i have a brother who is an Arminian (I think) pastor... IFB anyway & he knows his bible far better than I. I never once heard him discredit a Calvinist nor have I discredited him for his beliefs. He goes to his Legalistic (LOL) church & I go to mine. He's even pointed the one I go to now out to me. We both respect each others beliefs. We both come from a RC background & so we feel Orthodox Christianity in more important & we also consider correct doctrine important as well as worship & study. There is no fighting back & forth. I also have cousins who have embraced Weslyan....same rules apply.

 

Because Christ commanded the apostles to go out and preach the gospel to everyone. Better take it up with Him.

Your question has been asked and answered.

 

Here is what I was wondering Scan. You indicated you are a pastor of a church & you also go out on speaking engagements. How do you treat a Calvinist that walks into your church? Do you tell him his theology is false? Do you try to convert him? Do you kick him out if he refuses to conform?

 

Yea but you dont go that way....ah, theologically (lol) so if say I wanted to feed & nourish my theological belief system you could not & would not teach DoG Doctrines of Election, & why would you! This is why I suggest to all my Calvinist brothers & sisters the importance of guides who are akin to their own beliefs. for example I now go to a Calvinistic Church that from the pulpit teaches me Election every week. I can feed my belief system & make friend with folks with like theology beliefs. I can go to my Arminian Friend down the block....literally walking distance & I know I will never hear DoG & he will subtly try to nudge me to what he believes to be correct. So I make the drive every week to the other side of town to hear Dr Cal. Thats why Ive always said that I go to my church & you go to yours. Simple right.

 

Skandel,

Then I don't understand the idea you claim to have with regard that man, his actions and or decisions, INFORMS God. This is a departure from the biblical understand that God is omniscient.

I see no reason to offer a rebuttle when the challenge is equally incumbant on the one presenting it. Your answer to this was to suppose God didn't know from all eternity, but is rather informed, gains new information that He did not posses, by the actions or decisions of man.

This denial is certainly unorthodox and is certainly heterodox.

 

What if God has already seen that w/o Him electing out a remnant out of a sinful race, that left to their "free will" choice, NONE would come unto Jesus to get saved, as ALL of us would w/o His grace and work on our behalf would chose to "stay in the dark"....

just trying to figure out why it is a bad thing IF God choses to save anyone of us out from a Race that DESERVES hell as our "reward?"

 

I see some of the errors in properly presenting Arminianism that Skandelon presents in the OP.

I see similar errors in presenting Calvinism, some made by Skandelon, and very intentionally, as continued debate has proven, but that isn't my main point.

We SHOULD represent our BROTHERS AND SISTERS honestly and accurately based on what they give us to use in so representing them. That can be difficult at times, because there is a lot of "cafeteria line" theology going on around here, with no real clear boundaries nor a whole lot of informed theology either. Inconsistencies are rampant, making it difficult, if not impossible, to actually diagnose a theological stance, which is why we're at odds most of the time.

I find your first 3 points somewhat the strawman argument, as are the responses of people who use them. That is not at all what Arminianism is, nor is it the way to rationally debate the issue. I do think that we can say that some verses in the Bible are given more weight than others -- and that can happen on both sides -- that would be a fair point to make.

I find a bigger issue in #4.

I don't think that Arminians think that at all, especially the way you have worded the proposition. What I commonly read on the board is more along the lines of:

Christ has died for all people, and they can come to Christ if they believe. God does not make the decision unless or until the person comes in faith (whether that decision is foreknowledge or at that moment).

It is that, that is largely argued against on the board by Calvinists.

I agree that the points above are not true of you, nor of Arminius, for they are indeed strawman arguments. On to your next point, I know there are a "few" non-Calvinistic scholars our there, but who exactly did you have in mind when you wrote the statement above? I've found that there is a wide discrepancy between Wesley's form of Arminianism and Arminius' form of Arminianism (and more yet between the 5 points presented to the Synod of Dort). At least give us a clue about whom it is that you are citing so accurate rebuttals can happen (if that is really your desire).

What is very interesting about the statement(s) above is that they are not the teaching of Arminius either. So, in effect, you have tossed us yet another strawman!

Arminius' main point of contention was that God not hold men accountable for that which they cannot remedy. Implied was that God's choice of whom He would save is not the same choice that men may wish to make, and that men are, in a fashion (with some careful wording about the preeminence of the Holy Spirit, and how men can do nothing apart from God) taking matters into their own hands.

Calvinism, of course, is consistent in that it never suggests that God offers gifts that no one can receive. You should know that -- it is perhaps the center tenet underlying the entire doctrine of Calvinism, i.e., that what God purposes WILL be fulfilled by God's power in God's timing, with God's means, for God's glory -- that those whom God gifts WILL receive those gifts, and not of any work of themselves. Christ died for the elect, of whom we dare not number. The elect are then "whosoever will" which fits well with Calvinist theology, but not with Arminian, which does have to dance around the issue of gifts offered but never received. Seems (as says Owen in DDDC) that this would make Christ's sacrifice of no or limited effect, i.e., that God was too weak or inefficient to actually perform that which He decreed that He would perform.

 

Hi Jesusfan,

What if God has already seen that w/o Him electing out a remnant out of a sinful race, that left to their "free will" choice, NONE would come unto Jesus to get saved, as ALL of us would w/o His grace and work on our behalf would chose to "stay in the dark"....

just trying to figure out why it is a bad thing IF God chose to save anyone of us out from a Race that DESERVES hell as our "reward?"

This premise is not in the cards. Matthew 23:13 says unregenerate lost folks were entering heaven and were prevented from entering false teaching. Had they needed Irresistible Grace to respond to the gospel the would not have been entering, or they would have entered. So since they did not enter they were not under the compulsion of irresistible grace, demonstrating that doctrine is false, and since they were entering without irresistible grace, they could respond to the milk of the gospel. But what about Prevenient Grace you might ask. If this is seen as altering folks with total spiritual inability so they have enough ability and it applies to everyone, one must ask why accept something not taught in scripture and then nullify it with something else not taught in scripture. Why muddy the waters. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 teaches that men of the flesh can understand and receive the milk of the gospel.

The idea that many if not most people are able to trust in Christ, 3 of the four soils, that faith comes not from enabling grace, but from the grace of hearing the gospel, and all those verses that say whoever believes in Him shall not perish presents an overwhelming case for limited spiritual ability that can be lost by the practice of sin.

I do not think anyone has said it is a bad thing (except seeming that way according to John Calvin) that God elects some and does not elect everyone. Everyone does deserve what they get in the afterlife, God's justice is perfect and the agony will be well deserved for the lost. Those who receive mercy have God's grace to thank, Christ providing the propitiation for the whole world, and those whose faith God credits as righteousness receive the benefit of that propitiation.

 

Wait a minute. You said everyone gets what they deserve in the after life. The damned certainly do. But the redeemed certainly do not get what they deserve. What they deserve is condemnation. But they go to glory because of God's grace through Jesus.The elect obtain mercy. In no way,shape, or form is it deserved.

 

Amen brother Rippon, Preach the Word!:love2::thumbs:

 

Van said that everyone deserves what they get in the afterlife. Do you agree with him?

 

I understand now what you are saying. But it doesn't make sense to me.

If all God's works are known to Him from the beginning of the world, that is, before anything that is created, was created, why are the sinful actions of men left out of His works?

Please explain the following if you wish:
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

In Romans 9:17 God tells me that He raised up Pharoah for His purpose. Certainly this is the work of God, known to Him from the beginning. How is it that it can be said that God merely knew who and what Pharoah would be and do, when God says He raised him up?

Now, I want to contrast your example of what you think is a permissive decree with the text that your example comes from:

Acts 4
27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

My questions:

1. Where in the text is the idea of a permissive decree?
2. Where in the text is the idea that God foreknew what they would do, and then decreed He would permit them to do it?
3. What was done according to "whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done"?
4. What is meant both by "thy hand" and "thy counsel" ?
5. What is meant by determined? What was determined according to the text?

I ask the questions because I want to hear how you answer them. I am not seeking information as though I haven't read this text before. The text seems simple and plain to me. So, I will give my answers:

1. There is no mention in the text of a permissive decree.
2. There is no mention in the text of foreknowledge in the sense that God looked into the future, saw what would happen, then decided to let it happen.
3. What was done was the trial and crucifixtion of Jesus.
4. "thy hand" means God was active in the accomplishing of His "counsel" "thy counsel" is God's purpose, or decree, which He purposed in Himself.
5. Determined means that God decided before hand. What God did determine was "whatsoever" they did in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.

I, therefore, conclude in agreement with the 1689 LBCF which says concerning God's decree:

Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )
Chapter 3, article 2