The question that Arminians flee

Abraham had faith and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Why do you have such a problem crediting men for faith when Paul does it so easily?

You and Paul must hold to different doctrines.

 

I suppose the only defensible Arminian position would be something along these lines:

1. The Holy Spirit draws individuals toward faith, thereby overcoming the total inability to approach God alone.

2. Those who do not resist the Holy Spirit eventually come to saving faith. This action is entirely passive. The Holy Spirit is doing the work whereas the individual is merely doing nothing.

3. The rest (the unsaved) do not come to faith because they actively oppose the work of the Holy Spirit, consciously and actively rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit to move them toward a saving faith.

I suppose in this position those who come to faith have no credit to their name in the process, but those who do not come to faith have discredit because they actively opposed the Holy Spirit.

I just threw this together on the fly, so bear with me if it's terribly lacking.

 

Well... I suppose I'll try my hand at this.

"Oh, right, there is no other answer. Because if you credit God in any way, you must admit that you could not possibly have made that decision without God's assistance in some way, whether you call it His grace, His regeneration, the "drawing" of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Strawman argument. I don't know if even CLASSICAL
Arminians would agree with this as a representation of there position. No Arminian who
has a basic understanding of theology would say God has no credit at all.

"Once their free-will is re-enabled by God, the difference between the saved and unsaved still boils down to their OWN free-will decision."

Free will is secondary, enablement is primary. Our free will decision would mean nothing without
enablement. Further, I can say I have free will without saying I am free to do all things. I am not free to move the moon out of its position. Free will doesn't mean complete enablement."

My answer: GOD get's the credit. I can take no more credit then a man who excepts a gift from another. Nobody would credit me for anything if I
accepted 50 million dollar from you.

 

Good response Tatian!

It's good to have you around!

 

***Blushes shamefully***

 

"Receiving something does not require action on the part of the receiver. I can deposit $50 million in your bank account without any "acceptance" or any other action on your part, in which case ALL of the credit goes to me."

This now becomes a matter of whether someone who accepts something from a person has done anything
credible.

"Then I walk up to another person and offer him $50 million and he refuses it. You can take credit for being smart enough..."

The presupposition you are operating on goes something like this; "I am in a college class with 30 students getting a F in the class... except me, I am getting a D. Because My grade is better then the others I am doing something good.
That is nonsense, I am still not doing good."

I wouldn't "take credit" for the D I am getting in that hypothetical class. I wouldn't take credit for excepting salvation anymore then I do for knowing the "wisdom" of breathing, bathing and drinking fluids. You compare the "wisdom" of
choosing Christ and the foolishness of not. Yet you don't compare how someone has committed suicide as a coward and yet myself as brave for not committing suicide.

I reject your presuposition that accepting Christ
as a wise choice on my part but instead I look upon it as an OBVIOUS choice. It's not amazing that I accept Christ but rather that ANYONE rejects him.

 

Titian,

God has no problem crediting Abraham for his faith as seen in Romans 4 so I don't know why Nick has such a problem with it.

What he is trying to do is make salvation through faith tautamount to salvation through works so that he can use the scriptures in which Paul refers to boasting against us. I assure you that Paul was not addressing people who were going around boasting about the fact that they humbly recongnized their sin and in faith repented, he was addressing Pharisaical Jews who were boasting of their works in the Law. To apply boasting passages to our discussion is the worst case of proof texting I've EVER seen from those who consider themselves to be people who believe the Bible.

Nick, is using deceptive debate tactics, just ignore him.

 

Heh... I certainly agree but I still don't believe salvation is anything we can give ourselves credit for because we have a positive responce to it. That is rediculous.

 

npetreley,

You said, 'Given the assumption that you choose to believe the Gospel of your own
free will, who gets the credit for making that decision -- you or God?'

Ray: You reduce God to something similar to the Sears Credit Department. We are nothing in the light that God tells us that 'even the nations of the earth are as a drop in a bucket.' The Lord God receives all the praise in leading us to eternal life. Nevertheless, God requires faith in order to please the Lord. [Hebrews 11:6] If He demands faith from sinners, and He does, then faith is our response toward Him, and yet we should not claim a kind of 'credit' as you suggest.

Grace is from God toward the sinner. [Ephesians 2:8-9] Faith is our response to the Lord in thankfulness for His redemptive plan. Peter claims that faith comes from the hearts/lives of men and women. [I Peter 1:7,9,21] Do you have a problem with God's explanation via the Apostle Peter?

Claim ownership of your faith; after all, it is 'Your faith.' Our faith is not a work, and yet we must 'diligently seek Him.' [Hebrews 11:6] God receives all the glory and praise, forever. This is the Arminian view of salvation, and is the Biblical interpretation as to how a sinner can find God. The Spirit of God calls all sinners to Himself, prior to regeneration.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Your question was answered and you have not supplied a rebuttle. The scripture speaks of depravity and of salvation but not of how we get from one to the other. Sense this is the case, I can supply a logicaly coherant concept by saying that God enables us to make a free will choice for him or not. I can even make indirect conections by other scriptures such as Titus 2:11
and 2 Peter 3:9. I know you have had an entire long discussion on this but I wasn't there so I am going to use it.

I will, however, post a presumptive defense of this passage. If 2 Peter 3:9 is referring to people already saved then it's absolutely absurd!
This would mean God is patient on account of HIMSELF! He is being patient with himself because
he has not regenerated them, yet. But yet, the scripture declares, he is patient on account of YOU and not himself.

 

"My answer: GOD get's the credit. I can take no more credit then a man who excepts a gift from another. Nobody would credit me for anything if I
accepted 50 million dollar from you."

The above was my answer to you in which case you compared the wisdom of accepting money to the lunicy of not. I then rebutted you by questioning
the presuposition of "wisdom" in choosing Christ as compared to the "wisdom" of breathing or drinking fluids. Nobody tells you either of those
is a wise idea. THEN I told you I reject the presuposition you based your argument off of.

"Then you are not answering my question, you are changing the premise. I personally agree that it is the obvious and irresistable choice, which is why when we are regenerated we will ALWAYS "choose" Christ. But that is not the premise for this question."

I didn't say it was irresistable in my statement
of saying it was obvious. I just said it (the right choice) is obvious the way choosing to drink fluids is the right and obvious thing to do.

"But then it still comes down to your own decision, for which you are entirely responsible, and for which you alone can take credit."

How can you post that? That's such a strawman I could build a scare crow and still have enough hay left over to 500 acres of horses.

1) I have already stated that no arminianist would agree with there argument being stated that way.

2) Even IF my choice came first, don't you think
the one who provides it get's SOME credit? Tell me if I am wrong, but you seem to indicate that if free will is true, we take all the credit. Wouldn't I have had to accomplish the action of what saved me AND choose to except it?

3) You have ignored my challenge of enablement. GOD takes ALL the credit because my choice is meaningless without it.

By the way. I have posted a topic concerning order of salvation and Ephesians 1. I am hoping they will draw some of your attention.

 

Calvinists always "give the credit" for the infinite gift of salvation to the one who is enabled to accept it - rather than the one who provides it.

Arminians do not.

Calvinists always "assume that the only reason that we choose something is that someone/something made us do it (inclined us, predisposed us, genetically programmed us) "

Arminians do not.

Free will BY DEFINITION states that you may CHOOSE any option no matter WHAT your genetics, or environment, or inclinations prior to that Gospel appeal, and drawing.

Calvinist such as Nick will respond - "yes but also provide ANOTHER answer BESIDES free will for that result".

Because "of course" Calvinism does NOT accept Free will - and needs ANOTHER solution. Something on the order of "God made me choose it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

What about those who are neither Calvinist nor Arminian? Just because one is not a five point Calvinist he/she is not necessarily and Arminian! Many baptists today might best be described as 2 Calvinists (I think N. Geisler gets credit for the term).

Wesley (Arminian) and the RCC favor a cooperation between God and free will - thus intentionally distancing themselves from the "semi-pelagian" label!

 

I agree that there are different kinds of Calvinists. 3 point Calvinists seem to have a lot in common with Arminians.

In Christ,

Bob