Arminian God cruel and arbitrary

Not unless you're a universalist or you're somehow redefining what "effectively" means, Bob You do not believe in efficacous drawing, our you would be a Calvinist. </font>[/QUOTE]Calvinism is that which "redefines effective" not the Arminian position.

In John 1 Christ is said to be the light that coming into the world - enlightens EVERY MAN.

Calvinism argument would charge that this is not really efficient or effective SINCE the same chapter says "but men loved darkness rather than light".

In other Words - God giving man free will - is used by Calvinism to charge God with the blame for man's failures as "if" bad choices on our part makes God "ineffecient" or "ineffective".

Arminians would never take such a leap into the night. You have used a circular argument by inserting the Calvinist argument on "effective" and "effecient" into the Arminian position - AS IF Arminians ever accepted the Calvinist definition.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, no, Bob, a circular argument is called begging the question, or arguing the premise.

You're the one the redefines the terminology. I have never before seen such a complete lack of historical perspective. The agreed upon definition of effective is exactly what the word means.

If God draws all men to Himself effectively, you end up with universalism.

In your view God does not draw men to Himself, He woos them. That's a HUGE difference, Bob.

 

So, Bob, if that is true and people don't get a chance to believe then God is being unjust, because God wants this but if they don't hear there's no opportunity for them to be saved. If things are as you say then salvation is a matter of justice and not mercy. However, what makes mercy mercy is the fact that we don't deserve it. There's also another alternative. If what you say above is true, then God is unjust if He doesn't save everybody, since He desires all be saved.

This is only so if the Arminian view is true. It is NOT obvious and its circular, because you must assume your view is true in order for your argument to be true.

You're entire reasoning process is just one huge non-sequitar. It turns on libertine free will, which is speculation and assumes that natural ability assumes moral ability. This is not taught in Scripture and must be brought to the text in order to justify the position. It assumes that words like any, all, and world are always universal terms. That is exegetically false. No satisfactory exegesis is ever offered. It requires you to end up believing in either dualism in the new birth or in a logically self-defeating self-causation, which is also false.

Calvinism does not describe God as unjust at all. All deserve condemnation and are in fact condemned. Some are redeemed others are not. Justice is satisfied at the cross. Redemption of the elect is an act of mercy. The rest get what they deserve, condemnation, and are allowed to continue to that end. This is passive, no corresponding postive act of reprobation is done by God, except in the hyperCalvinist model. Nothing is unjust, because justice is satisfied.

The Arminian view is VERY unjust. By grounding election in man and not Himself, God is playing favorites, because it makes faith a meritorious thing. It is also unjust because if it is something in us, you must answer the question of why someone believes and others do not. This gets you back to something about themselves or the quality of their intellect or faith. Since people all have different backgrounds and reasons for believing, that is injustice. Your view moves salvation from a matter of mercy to a matter of justice. By providing atonement for all and not offering it to all, that is unjust if God desires all men to be saved and does nothing about. Scripture also says that Jesus did what He did at exactly the right time. Well, if what you say is true, then you have made God into a liar, because there was no way of reaching people in Asia and the Americas after Jesus died and rose from the dead, after all, if all means all, then why not wait until a greater number of people could be reached with the gospel more quickly? It would make more sense to place the atonement in a much later century.

 

Hi Paul33;

I find this more true of Calvinism. Since Calvinism refuses to aknowledge that God is Love. They do this by suggesting that God's Love for man isn't His will. A direct contradiction of the Word. They insist that God makes man Love Him when no one, God or man can be made to Love. Since Love is an act of the will.
Calvinism denys man, the will to Love. Which, by the very fact that we are all commanded to Love God, implies that we have a CHOICE. Other wise why comand it?
May God Bless You With Light;
Mike

 

Romans 10 argues from Psalms when it says "but surely they never heard did they?" and says that nature itself has instructed them regarding the facts needed to believe and be saved.

Romans makes the same point in chapter 1 about the attribtues of God "clearly seen".

In Heb 4:1-2 Paul goes even farther, saying about those SAME OT people "The gospel was preached to us JUST as it was to THEM also".

The voice that has gone out into all the earth is the voice of nature according to the quoted text of Psalms 19.

 

That is a wonderful circular argument pretending to embrace Arminianism. I "show" how the arminian position relies on scripture when it rejects your "nobody told you so you must die" model - and you pull your own Calvinist ideas in to oppose my Arminian position. THEN you claim above that YOUR Calvinist view is the real Arminian position and seek to show how it is cruel.

What a hoot!

See the REAL Arminian Scenario already spelled out on this very thread here --

CLICK

I Then show how the Calvinist view shows God to be a cruel monster using the same scenario --

CLICK AGAIN

I can see why you have to reject the actual points raised by Arminian posts here - to make your case against Arminianism - showing it to teach something that I do not believe --

In fact - the closer you model it to your view of Calvinism - the more successful you are at showing it to portray a cruel God.

Surely that has to frustrate you a little.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 21, 2004, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

So, Bob, if that is true and people don't get a chance to believe then God is being unjust, because God wants this but if they don't hear there's no opportunity for them to be saved.
</font>[/QUOTE]You have to ignore a lot of my recent posts to make that argument.

Why not address the points I am making specific to that argument?

Review the Arminian scenario I posted above and make your case.

This gets us back to the "arbitrary selection" form of election that you promote in Matt 7 where the FEW are selected "without any consideration to the person" on a totally arbitrary basis - from among the many.

Arbitrary selection is exactly what is depicted in the Calvinist future scenario I posted above.

Think about it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am glad God is not Arminian--

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the face of the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."
Book of Genesis, Chapter 6, verses 5-8.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith, that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Eph. Ch.2.

Thus saith the Lord.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

A. I show in the Calvinist vs Arminian future scenarios exactly how God is made to appear in both views. The contrast is glaring.

B. I claim that God the Holy Spirit IS "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" and that God really iis NOT willing that any should perish - to the point of highlighting the extreme examples of Romans 2 and Romans 10 where the Holy Spirit works in the New Covenant New Birth in those who do not have scripture - as they accept and yield to His John 3 influence.

Instead of an arbitrary God who simply says "yes but your story was not good enough to be saved" as you suppose He says.

How in the world can you say that - when I am pointing out the solution to that in my statements on Romans 2 and Romans 10?

I don't get it.

Here is the part where we agree --

In fact - God "so loves the WORLD that He chooses to Give His Son" from before the foundations of the world.

In your view - those who do not have access to the Gospel as it is in scripture - those who only have nature and the Holy Spirit - are not elect.

Romans 2 and 10 do not support that idea.

God knows (Foreknows) who will be saved and who will be lost. But His statement to the lost is found in scripture as "AS I live says the Lord I have NO pleasure in the death of anyone". It is found in His own statement "OH WHY will you die? Turn to ME and LIVE!" it is found in His statement "LISTEN TO ME EVERYONE who thirsts COME ". It is found in His universal call "COME TO Me ALL who are weary and burdened by sin".

He gives His life "For the World" because He "so LOVES the World" and is not willing that ANY should perish.

This has no element of "I passed over you so you are lost".

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 21, 2004, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

How is that not Arminian?

If God were Calvinist it would have included the salient points of 5pt calvinism as in the following

I am glad God is not a 5 pt Calvinist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well there you have it.

3 Pt Calvinists are hard for an Arminian to debate with. We keep falling into the trap of agreeing with them on key points.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree with 4 Pt Calvinists who say they findn fault with the 5 pt Calvinists in that the 5-pointers have a good case for OSAS but not a good case for assurance - since salvation is retro-deleted when you are found not to persevere 10 years from now.

I agree with 5 Pt Calvinists when they complain about 4-pointers having to ignore all the scriptures that speak to the subject of perseverance of the saints being an aboslute non-negotiable result of the Gospel in a person's life.

And I agree with both of them when they complain that Arminians have no basis for arguing OSAS from the standpoint of no free-will no-choice after becoming saved.

So "yes" I do agree with those guys on "Some" Things.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is my understanding that Arminians revolt against predestination absolute and that God elects. It is Calvin's God which is usually seen as a tyrant and an executioner!

Arminius thought that God wishes to make all believers in Christ who persisted in their belief to the end blessed in Christ, and for His sake would only condemn the unconverted and unbelieving. He condemned the doctrine of election according to which the chosen are counted as necessarily and unavoidably blessed and the outcasts necessarily and unavoidably lost. He urged the milder doctrine that Christ has died for all men, and that believers were only chosen in so far as they enjoyed he forgiveness of sins.

It is considerably less cruel than Calvinism.

Corinne

 

aren't you confusing Arminianism and Calvinism? The elect people of Calvin have no free will, God has already decided for them.

Corinne

 

Corinne,

Point.

In Christ,

Bob