Arminian Aberrations

Dave....can you prove these statements out thru scripture?

 

There is nothing in the record about Adam's parents, but that hasn't stopped you from believing in them.

So, basically, when you speak of God's "enabling," you mean He simply offers a choice, like I might "enable" my little girl to choose between white milk or chocolate. He does nothing in the heart.

Correct?

 

EWF, I think....if you look at the account of the fall, and the subsequent curse placed on humanity, there is no mention of this concept corpse like deadness to God

 

I must be correct.

What the quantum and Scandal call an "enabling" is anything but. Like the well-known algebra teaser where one can appear to prove that 2=1, they couch their intentions in a cloud of meaningless jargon. Instead of writing the symbol 0 (zero), they express it as (a-b)* so that it doesn't immediately appear that they are dividing by 0.

They both speak of "power" and the "Spirit" where neither are present nor required.

It is all about man being good and wise enough to make the right choice when presented with it.

I think I'll remain a Calvinist, thank you.

*Where a=b

 

By all means please do so. If that is where you are most confident and secure.

 

Careful Cypress, you likely to be scratched from Aaron's Christmas card list, and others as well.

 

What confuses this issue is that some don't consider God's 'prevenient' work in sending the powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel as either "powerful" or "spiritual" or "sufficient" enough to accomplish its purpose of enabling its hearer to be reconciled to God.

Tell me, what is more powerful or spiritual than the gospel appeal? Jesus said, "The words I speak to you are spirit and life." And yet there are some that insist His words (the powerful gospel) isn't spiritual or life-giving enough without an additional work of the Spirit.

 

Some calvinists do not have to think because they are robots from God and would never make a mistake because God never makes mistakes. They never sin because they always do what god wants by the controller for the robot. Some calivinists can be at ease because they can be assured that everything they do is always right because they are God's exclusive robots. They cannot sin because they are too busy doing everything right in God's kingdom of perfection on earth.

Oh I forgot to say that it is impossible for them to have ever done anything wrong because everything they have done since they were born has been controlled by God.

 

Another great contribution (at least as I see it)



Peter Kirk writes an excellent post discussing the ramifications of Augustine's use of an inadequate translation in developing doctrine. (He is following Doug Chaplin's discussion of the subject.) Essentially, Augustine understood Romans 5:12 as "in whom all sinned," with the implication that we are all guilty, not merely of our own sins, but of Adam's; that we are born guilty of Adam's sin. This is the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, which is foundational to the doctrine of total depravity. However, all modern translations recognize that the Greek of Romans 5:12 is better rendered, "because all sinned"--Augustine was following an inadequate Latin translation at this point. Paul's point is not that we all sinned with Adam in the Garden of Eden, but that we have all sinned just as Adam sinned, and therefore we all need the gift of God's grace through the sacrifice of Jesus.

It is thought by some that denial of the extent to which Augustine pushed the doctrine of original sin (and thus total depravity) implies Pelagianism: that it would be possible for a person to justify himself without appeal to the sacrifice of Jesus, that we can and must work to merit God's favor, that we become co-participants in our own salvation. But this is not a necessary conclusion. Other scriptures make it clear that in fact we all have sinned, and that we cannot come to Jesus merely of our own accord. Nonetheless, the corollary to total depravity--that not only can we not come to God on our own, but we cannot even respond to the Gospel without God enabling us, and then we will unfailingly do so--is not taught in Scripture.

Not only does this bespeak of the dangers of using an inadequate translation; it bespeaks of the dangers of building doctrine on so narrow a foundation as a single interpretation of a single phrase.

 

This is another problem you have Aaron. You seem to assume that outward means (like the gospel) can't have an inward affect, which is simply untrue. You assume the Spirit must somehow work independently of God's appointed means to inwardly and irresistibly affect man's heart in order for the means to have any effect, but the scripture never says this. In fact, in indicates the opposite. The gospel IS a WORK of the Spirit, and God is said to work through means to change or provoke man's will...

Envy is said to provoke the will of the Jew so as to lead to their salvation. (Rm 11:14)

Signs and wonders are said to have changed whether some believed or not. (Mt 11:21)

The gospel is said to be the power of God unto salvation (Rm 1:16) and that faith comes by hearing it (Rm 10)

Wealth is said to make entering God's kingdom more difficult (Lk 14)

Being a child is said to make one more fit to enter God's kingdom (Mk 10)

Becoming hardened, which we are warned not to become (Heb 3), is said to cause one to be unable to see, hear, understand and repent. (Acts 28:24-28)

Jesus' use of parables is said to have prevented some from coming to faith and repentance (Mk 4; Matt 13)

Scripture speaks of persuasion and beseeching of others to change as if these efforts can and do have a real effect. (2 Cor 5)

All of these indicate the power of outward means to affect man's will, just as spending 3 days in the belly of a fish, or being blinded by a light, or having a very vivid dream might also be used to change the mind and will of a man to ensure His inspired message is correctly delivered to the world.

 

QF,
I heard the original messages from the Auburn Avenue conference...
This is a dangerous heresy and i have no problem saying it just that way as it denies the gospel itself.
What makes it so dangerous is that it uses biblical language to mask the error......it is Rc doctrine ...with out the pope.....a works gospel...that is no gospel....

QF......I understand what you mean...you are trying to be very sensitive...and that is sometimes good.....but when wolves come after sheep...there is a time to be confrontational....

It is not like some of these doctrines are multiple choice....where there are several good and acceptable answers.


for you QF.... just scroll through the titles on sermonaudio.....there are many more I could offer.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...ion&keyword=federal+vision+OR+new+perspective

QF as time permits...give a careful listen to any or all of these men.


this is not just a small thing..or a different view that can be discussed casually....it is a direct attack on the gospel of grace.

 

Icon, I do appreciate your concern, this is an occasion that I feel you are most assuredly "concerned", that which I have posted "thus far" regarding NPP is clearly (to me) not along any lines of theological lines error. I can very confidently and clearly see Paul in Romans taking on the issue of Jewish pride, exclusivism and corruption of mankind creating a works and merit based method of achieving salvation. I can see this with crystal clarity in Pauls message......do I assume that this position is entirely correct, I concede I do not know with all certainty much like I do with derivatives and integrals....NO, but I do NOT see it as some aberrant theological musing.

Also, I just simply do not see HOW you say that such a position leads to works based soteriology.

 

Your problem, Charlie, is that you don't believe the Scriptures. Where Paul says the carnal mind is at enmity with God and CANNOT submit to Him, your argument is that the carnal mind just needs a little outward manipulation. Your "powerful, spirit-wrought gospel" only affects those who are good and wise enough to receive it, like my girl's taste for chocolate may affect her decision to choose between my offering of white milk or chocolate.

You want to call that an "enabling." Two equals one.

 

Again, you're simply saying the words give life to some—not all who hear it. The difference? The hearer, not God. Some power there.

 

As you said to MB, you have added NOTHING to the discussion except your usual declarations.