Do Arminists Hold To Pelagianism In Their Theology?

To add to this, pelagianism also teaches that man is unaffected by the fall, something arminianism does not teach. It was just said yesterday that the logical conclusion to arminianism is pelagianism, and this was the most ignorant statement I have read in some time.

 

Brother, I am going to start a new thread, wait, I'll see if I can retrieve the old thread, and we can take off from there. If you'd like, read it from the beginning, provided I can dig it up!! I do not wish to derail this thread.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

PS They may have closed it, and if they did, I'll start anutter one!! :thumbs:

 

With all due respect, but doesn't that presume that the gospel (a product of the Holy Spirit) is not the means through which He chose to bring this "conviction?" Think about it, when Jesus said this he hadn't sent the full gospel yet. It wasn't until Paul was called to the Gentiles and Peter had his dream that this mystery of redemption for the world was even made known. The Holy Spirit DID bring conviction by bring us the scripture and the gospel appeal through divine inspiration and Holy Spirit indwelling of His messengers, His church.

Could it be that we PRESUME that these means must be accompanied by some "other" inward secret working when in the past God has always used "outward" means to provoke man's will. Jonah was convinced by a fish. Tyre and Sidon would have been convinced by signs. Paul was convinced by a blinding light. Thomas was convinced by seeing the scars...etc etc. Why presume the Holy Spirit must do something other than the revealed outward means of the church, scripture and the preaching of the gospel appeal by those indwelled by the Holy Spirit?

Which he did, in inspiriting the writers of the NT. And he continues to do by indwelling the hearts of those who believe and are compelled to preach the HS wrought gospel of reconciliation. I mean, he did put the mysteries of the kingdom in earthly language for us to understand, had it written in a book for all to read, had it preserved to be preached, indwells those who believe and gives us the calling to make disciples through His church throughout the entire world. Isn't that sufficient? Must there be some additional work to make it more clear that he loves us and wants us to be reconciled to him?

1. Is the divinely inspired truth of God revealed through divinely appointed men of God by the Holy Spirit a natural means?

2. Where does the bible teach that the gospel, which is a work of the HS itself, needs an additional working of the Spirit to be effective to accomplish it's purpose?

Agreed. Various means are used. The ones I see clearly depicted are the scriptures (which contain the gospel), and the church (made up of HS indwelled followers who are compelled to preach that gospel). What other means are needed which without it, would make these first two powerless?

 

Exactly!!! Well stated. :thumbsup:

The "letter" is a work of the Spirit, thus it cannot be seen as "separate" from Him, which is why your following statements confuse me.

See what I mean? Here you presume that the written word can somehow be separate from the Spirit's work. Why? If the written word IS A WORK of the Holy Spirit, then how can they ever be "apart?"

You do it again here:

See, you separate the written word, which is a work of the Holy Spirit, from the "working of the Spirit."

That is like you writing a book explaining how to join this forum and then me saying to someone who just read your book, "You can't know how to join the forum without the help of Allan."

"But, I have his help. He gave me a book explaining everything I need to know, why would an addition work of Allan be necessary?"

What are the means the Holy Spirit uses to convict the world of sin?

If they have the words of God then they aren't all by themselves, are they?

 

Yes, God's words are not mere words, they are the Spirit himself, they are quick and alive, they carry power.

We see several examples in scripture.

Jn 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 AND THEY WHICH HEARD IT, BEING CONVICTED BY THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When these men heard Jesus's words, they were convicted by their own conscience. The word of God has power to convict, but also, unregenerate men retain a conscience and can be convicted.

Acts 2:37 NOW WHEN THEY HEARD THIS, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Again, the word of God convicts, and unregenerate man can be convicted simply by hearing God's words.

Acts 7:54 WHEN THEY HEARD THESE THINGS, THEY WERE CUT TO THE HEART, and gnashed on him with their teeth.

These unregenerate men were deeply convicted by God's word, but resisted and rebelled against them.

What do these three examples have in common? They show unregenerate man can be convicted simply by hearing God's word.

You cannot separate God's words from his Spirit, they are one and the same.

That is why the scriptures are important. Do you hold God's words in your hand, or a counterfeit?

 

Are they?

 

That is because you are misunderstanding me.

Yes, it is separate. But when the Spirit uses the means to convict and reveal they are become one and life.

Let me put it this way.

When I was 5 I could quote you nearly 200 bible passages. I could answer most bible questions and even knew what it took to be saved.

Yet it wasn't till I was 17 that any of that took on real and a valid meaning.
Knowing the word alone (being able to repeat) was not enough to save me, I had to come to understand it spiritually which is the work of the Holy Spirit. The day that God began dealing with me regarding those passages I have memorized happened at that time (of 17) and not at 5. Why did I not grasp the spiritual truth at that time? I knew what to tell people I know the bible verses, but I didn't fully understand what they meant.

Was scripture any less? No.. but what made it alive was the work of the Holy Spirit upon me to reveal it.

We know that scripture tells us God sent forth the Spirit to convict the world of sin, His righteousness (for there is no other), and the Judgment to come.
We also know that God himself reveals these same basic truths in nature. Now does everyone who looks at nature suddenly come to this understanding? No they do not, it happens as God the Holy Spirit works upon them, revealing these things.

We also know they expounded in a more complete and thus saving way in the scriptures but not till the Spirit of God works upon them. Josh McDowell is another good example.. knowing the scriptures and setting forth to prove them wrong, ended up coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus. Was the written Word enough? or must it be empowered by the Spirit of God to bring forth spiritual comprehension - at which point we may accept or reject.

Because they are separate, in and of themselves.
Just because it is a 'work' of the Holy Spirit - that being godly men wrote what He was guiding them to.. does not equate the 'work' to being the working of the Holy Spirit.

Actually, that IS true. No man can, of or by himself come to know spiritual truths apart from the revelation of it to Him by God. This is easily demonstrated in life as I showed above.. and with others who knew the scriptures but did not come to an understanding till some or much time later.
As well as in scripture.

The initial work are for His people, with a sub group in mind, those who are not. The work of the Spirit of God is to reveal the initial work that is to His people. The word alone is not enough, otherwise you would not need the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth.

Yet the means, is useless apart from the Spirit using it do the work of conviction.

 

I'm not completely disagreeing, just questioning...where does the scripture teach this concept?

I ask because when I read Eph. 3, for example, I see that the power is in the chosen means, not in some secret additional working that must accompany those means...

2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.

So, prior to the the apostles, there was a mystery, God chose to send Jesus to train the apostles and to reveal to them these mysteries and inspire them to write them down and reveal them to the world by the work of the Holy Spirit. Upon believing that same Spirit indwells the hearts of men as they too spread this mystery for all to know and understand. Why would the HS need to do more than this, and where does the scripture say their is more that he must do?

I could say the same about the book War and Peace. There are certain levels of comprehension for a 17 year old that are not typical for a 5 year old. But, like you said...

Correct. It wasn't any less. It was truthful and life-giving....

The work of the Holy Spirit was to produce the gospel and carry the gospel to you through the means God has clearly revealed in the scriptures. It's like the Ethiopian told Philip, "how can I understand if someone doesn't explain it to me?" Why would the angel have sent Philip to give the Ethiopian understanding if God could have just supernaturally giving him understanding? (like the question in your other thread) God chooses natural or normative means which involve US, his creatures. I think if you were to objectively consider your experience as a 17 year old you might remember there were people and circumstances God used in your life to help bring about the understanding of things already known. I have NO problem crediting that to a work of God, but my point is that God typically chooses normative means to bring about these things and I just don't see much in scripture to convince me that there must be some additional secret inward supernatural working of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that just any written word wouldn't be enough, but HIS Word is enough and can't be separated from the Spirit, because it is of the Spirit. The gospel is the power of God unto Salvation BECAUSE it was wrought by the Holy Spirit. EVERY time it is read or preached it has the potential to save, even if it is preached by false teachers, which is why Paul was able to find good in the gospel being preached by false teachers...he understood that the truth has power to set men free even if being carried by unspiritual messengers.

Just as John "came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him," so too God sent the apostles and their scriptures for the same purpose. To presume that the testimony itself is insufficient for belief isn't a biblically supported view.

Can you provide biblical support for this? You agree that the gospel is a work of the Holy Spirit, but you have yet to prove that there must be an additional working of the HS in order for the first work to be sufficient.

Correct. And the gospel is THAT revelation to man by God. It's your burden to prove that revelation is insufficient to lead someone to faith.

 

throughout the whole of the scripture.

We note that just because a person or group has the word of God, does not necessitate that they automatically have comprehension of what it is saying 'spiritually'. If the Word IS, by itself, the work of the Holy Spirit then anyone who reads any part, at any time, would have comprehension as it IS the work/working of the Holy Spirit. And we have the issue whereby no man can come to know and understand spiritual truths as they (those truths) must be revealed by God. Though the word contains them, they are hidden from the natural mans ability to just come to know them of his own accord. It 'must' be revealed to him by God.

Actually, you seem to just pass over that very work in those very passages you quote. Note first who Paul is addressing, not the lost or unregenerate but believers. This changes the dynamic of interaction, in which believers are guided by the Spirit of God into all truth. The word alone does not do this. It is the work of the Spirit of God to reveal, that they might know.

Next note, that though Paul knew the scriptures, probably better than most of their great teachers, he states in your very passage that 'this mystery' had to be revealed to him. As you said, it was a mystery, even with the Spirits work (the OT), we can note that by the word itself, the revelation was not something he came to just by reading but that there was a work done to him - revealing or making something known to him, and he states it was made known to him by 'revelation' not by just reading. The OT is the same work of the Holy Spirit as the NT. And though it was not made manifest completely the knowledge of salvation (justification by faith), the true Messiah, His death and resurrection are all in the OT. Yet it was hidden, to only be revealed in due time by that Spirit of God.

Thus verse 4 tells those believers (who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit who leads them into all truth) 'they' can know this.. not that just anyone can come to know this by reading. Why not? Because there is a qualifier, them being believers and thus already indwelt by the Spirit of God who leads them 'into' all truth. We see this personified in that Paul also had to have it revealed to him "By the Spirit", and thus only those with the Spirit of God can come to understand what he is writing due to Spirit of God already in them, leading and guiding them. This precludes others from coming to know just by reading, apart from the working of the Holy Spirit. We can deduce this from the passage you cite because it is speaking to people who are already believers.

This can be noted in 1 Cor 2:

Note that it is the Spirit of God who does the revealing and teaching to believers using means (verbally and writing).. and that since the Spirit indwells them they can come to know these truths.. YET, the natural man (who does not have the Spirit of God) can not come to this knowledge simply by listen or reading like the believers can. Why? Because it must be - revealed, which is an act of the Holy Spirit upon man, and not when man decides to.

Hmmm.. so now War and Peace are on the same spiritual grounds as scripture? According to 1 Cor 2 cited above there is not comparison. World things can be understand when man chooses to know them or has the faculties to understand them, but spiritual understanding of things are not determined by whim, desire, or faculties of man. They are done at the Spirits desire.

Yes, there are 5 year olds that understand better than many adults the spiritual truths of God. I know on lady who's testimony has not changed over the last 91 years. She was saved at 5 and was broken over her sins, weeping and crying out for mercy to a Holy God in prayer, clinging to the only savior she knew He would accept (that is her testimony). She still can tell you of the brokenness she felt over her sin, what is was, and could explain is detail why she needed a savior. So to presume that advanced mental faculties (adult) are necessary for comprehension, does not measure up to life, nor scripture.

And yet I received no life from knowing it.

Agreed in most instances. However your own example shows that reading His word is not enough. There must be the working of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Word.

Agreed, but none of them during that time brought the understanding I needed to come to a saving knowledge of Christ Jesus. It was not till the work of the Spirit of God upon my heart to bring them to bear and reveal how they explained the spiritual truths I could not come to know myself.

And yet that is all I base it upon.. hmmmm.
What has not been supported is that the word in and of itself is the 'working of the Spirit' or 'revealing of the Spirit' that scripture is speaking of. Especially in light of the fact that scripture speaks only of believers able to know/understand what is written and that due to the already indwelling Holy Spirit. Or how to divorce the fact that it is the Spirit of God who leads us into all truth and not the word that shows us all truth. Or that the natural man can not, of himself come to know spiritual truths unless God reveals it to them (not just of the Word, but of/in nature, and the conscience as well -Rom1:18-ch 2..)

Read above

Actually it is YOUR burden as you called my view into question stating it was not true. Therefore you made the challenge and the burden rests on you. However I have provided some of many passages, and biblical principles above.

 

Was the statement backed up with anything or was it just a statement?

 

???support????
Who needs such a thing when you can spit from the sidelines and run for cover?

 

Yeah,it was just as bad as yours saying that Calvinism leads to Hyper-Calvinism. It's as bad as folks from your ranks that say that Calvinism leads to Roman Catholicism,Universalism and other isms.

I have to say though that taking Arminianism to its logical conclusion would lead someone to at least an Open-Theism position.

By the way,your denial of original sin --and Romans 5 in particular is a mark of Pelagianism.Your belief that obligation presumes ability is also Pelagian.

 

Allan,

Before I delve deeper into this with you I need to ask a point of clarification regarding one of your arguments. You seem to indicate that because you weren't effectually saved by knowing the scripture that is somehow proof of it's insufficiency to give you what you needed to be saved. So, as a non-Calvinist do you believe all people like you, who are exposed to the scripture, are enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture at some point in their lives? If not, why aren't you a Calvinist?

If so, then couldn't we make the same argument you have made regarding those who refuse to believe even after the Holy Spirit enlightens them?

You said, "Yet, you received no life from knowing it," as defense for your view, but what about the person who has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit and chooses to reject it? Could he say that he received no life from knowing it too?

You are making the same error that Calvinists make when they insist that if the calling doesn't have an effect on someone that it must not have been sufficient to accomplish its intended purpose. That presumes that man's will isn't really free to reject, ignore or even misunderstand that which is clearly revealed. Are you arguing that between the ages of 5-17, prior to the Holy Spirit enlightening you, that you weren't free to come to Christ? Please explain.


One more quick question: Do you also believe that the Holy Spirit must indwell a man prior to his understanding the gospel unto salvation? You seemed to support that view in your post, but I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

 

Name one thing that God obligates and condemns men for that he doesn't give them the means/ability to do?

And please don't say the law, because Christ fulfilled the law and through faith in him we do to.

And don't quote, "Be holy as He is holy," because through faith in Christ we can do that to.

It's question begging at its worse to presume that because we can't fulfill the law or be perfect that we also can't place our faith in the one who did that for us all.

 

Well, that (experience) coupled with scripture.
By itself, I was not saved.
While the word is able to bring one to the knowledge 'to be' saved, it can not, of itself, impart understanding to the lost. It gives truth, but that truth 'can not' be understood apart from the Spirit of God revealing it. (as the previous passage of scripture I gave attest to this, and many others)

Thus one can know scripture (even better than most well educated theologians) and still not be saved. My point in this statement is that you keep saying the Word IS the work of the Spirit upon men. To this I disagree in that it is not so automatically. If so, no matter what age you are, once you can read the scripture you should be immediately enlightened and have spiritual understanding since word IS work of the Spirit and thereby 'working' upon all who hear/read it. Yet we know this is not the case neither by experience nor scripture.

You have to understand, (and I'm not thinking you are) is the word being a 'work' of the Spirit, is not the same thing as the Spirit working upon men. The Spirit does not work apart from the word (to this I agree), but the Word can be used apart from the Spirit of God. Just because one knows with comprehension scripture does not necessitate one spiritually understands it.

Now granted, my point here is speaking PRIOR to either rejection or acceptance, but in initial revealing of such spiritual truths.

Because that is not full aspect of the Calvinist belief, but it is of the Non-Cal belief. No, non-Cal I have ever met, whether in churches, christian college, or seminary, helds a different view... and I have met a very great many over the last 17 years. The Spirit of God moves upon the heart of man to give spiritual understanding of the Word of God when He chooses. This is summed up in the biblical concept of the Age of Accountability. Why does one child understand at 6 what another does not till they are 16 or 18 (and neither mentally impaired)? It is the work of the Spirit of God upon man at various times, in various places.

Yep. They must understand those spiritual truths in order to reject them.
But that knowledge does not come from just reading and through our normal faculties grasping through our intellect spiritual truths. Rom1:18-32 speaks of nature showing these same things (works of God indeed ) and yet it says that before they rejected His truths, God had revealed them (those basic spiritual truths) to them. - as a quick example

Yep. What is life in this context? If we are dead in our trespasses and sins, what does dead mean - separated from God. Thus to have life, we are united with God. There is no life apart from being 'IN Christ'.

Being enlightened is not the same as having life.

That is because you aren't listening since I have never made any such assertions. You keep trying to debate me as if I am a Calvinist when in fact, I am not, nor is the concept I am speaking to Calvinistic. The calling, ALWAYS produces an effect, and that on ALL men. The effect is allowing man to choose. The 'call' - reveals spiritual truth to man giving him a choice he never would have had otherwise.

See, you are trying to add something to my argument I have never said much less implied because you are trying to debate an argument I am not using. I am only free to come as the Spirit of God moves upon me to know I even need to. While it is true I am still free prior to that knowledge, there is no actual choice to do so because I don't even know I need to. Therefore in truth I am not 'free' to come to Christ because in not knowing my need I have no valid opportunity.

You are trying to use only my personal experience as if that is what my argument hinges upon, when I only used it as an example to the testimony of scripture.

 

Kind of like your post here? To both you and ew&t, what exactly in my statement needs to be backed up...that the foolishness of the logical conclusion to arminianism is pelagianism?! Even rippon agree its foolish...and you cannot prove a negative. I would think someone who puts such an emphasis on education would have known that.

 

If God decrees all things, of course the logical conclusion is hyper calvinism. Just look at Lukes theology.

Btw, your belief of augustinianism is a mark of roman catholicism...your point?

 

Cover is good.....saved me a few times. Gettin shot hurts & can lead to death. Im not in favor of bleeding out. you end up in a bag.

 

WD, I want you to be aware that Ive asked Luke to back up some of his statements in the past when he has made blankets. So I am not showing favoritism, merely asking for support data. OK?

 

My support was given in my statement which was an addendum to what I agreed with Allan on. What would you like clarified?