Do Arminists Hold To Pelagianism In Their Theology?

Never mind. Sorry I asked.

 

Huh? Why post in riddles? You asked a question, I gave an answer to the best of my abilities not having clarification on what you wanted, now it's just forget about it? Did I answer it or did you not have a question to begin with?

 

A few follow up questions:
1. Is it your view that one is not accountable until the time in which the HS brings enlightenment?

• If so, what happens to those the HS never enlightens, or do you believe he elightens everyone at some time?
• If not, how does God hold man accountable to believe that which he has not granted him the ability to understand?

2. Of those God has enlightened, but who have rejected Christ, could it not be said in their experience that the HS work was insufficient to save them in the same manner you claim that the Holy Spirit's gospel was insufficient to save you?

• With regard to scripture, how do you know when it is speaking of the HS work through the gospel and when it is speaking of your view of some internal supernatural enlightening?

I agree, yet you presume that the work of the HS to bring you the scriptures and the preaching of the gospel is somehow insufficient to give you such knowledge.

The 1 Cor 2 passage is clearly about understanding the "deep things of God" yet to be revealed, since those he is addressing didn't yet have the NT scriptures which were the means sent to explain such mysteries that were revealed to the apostles so as to make them known to us (Eph 3).

I addressed your personal experience in turn, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to address the biblical data as well. It appears you can list several verses which speak of the need for God (HS) to reveal truth for our understanding. We all agree. But you seem to presume that such scriptures couldn't be referring to the normative (outward) means. For example, the passage we looked at earlier:

Eph 3:2 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.

Now you responded by saying this was addressed to believers, and I totally agree. I'm not sure how that changes anything. You go on to write:

See how you simply presumed this must mean some work other than what Paul was providing through his writing and teaching, when the text actually says, "the mystery made known to me by revelation [who is the mystery made known to? Paul...so that he could write it and reveal it to us], as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ..."

God reveals, through divine inspiration to his prophets/apostles (which is what sets them apart as being authoritative), and then sends them to write and preach these truths so as to reveal it to the world.

Yes, as an apostles inspired to write the authoritative scriptures. Are you arguing that God must inspire us to understand that writing in the same manner that he had to inspire their writings? Where does the text teach this?

But this "mystery" to which he was referring wasn't made known in the OT texts, but where just now being manifest through the apostles, right?

So, do you believe then that for a lost man to understand the gospel they must first be indwelled by the Holy Spirit? And are you saying the intelligent atheists, who have rejected Christ and his revelation even after the HS enlightment, can't understand these concepts unless indwelled by the HS?

 

Do you not know or understand the concept of the age of accountability?

If not, then I don't mind explaining but do to time restraints I shouldn't have to wright again what you already know.

No.

Because scripture has already established the view and does not part from it.
the natural man is always learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth. Scripture also never claims that word/Bible is synonymous with being the 'working' of the Spirit. The Spirit uses the word, but that is not the same as the 'work' (the scriptures) being equated as the Spirit's working power. When the scripture states the 'gospel is the power of God unto salvation' it does not equate or translate to 'the bible is power of God unto salvation', especially with John 1:12 speaking of receiving Him we receive power to become sons of God (which is speaking of being saved) - The gospel is not the bible, though the bible does contain the message of the gospel and in fact is theme through out it.

No. The work of creating the scriptures thus to make and therefore have the Bible does not translate to the Bible in and of itself being the "working" of the Holy Spirit. The problem here is there is nothing in scripture that speaks of it as such. That is the issue. In your statement above, you give a qualifier that the Holy Spirit did this.. and thus the sufficiency is imparted to the normative means. Even you acknowledge the working of the Holy Spirit is involved and as an outside source (moving) AND an internal one (revealing)

Actually it isn't just the 'deep things of God' but even the simple gospel message as noted in 1 Cor 2:7. 1 Cor 2:10 states these things (all those mysteries, including the gospel) were revealed by God. The context includes all of it and Paul establishes that it is not just the simply but even the deep things of God. Verses 11 and 12 establish this concept that the Spirit of God is the one who must reveal the truth to man.. and that He is given to those who believe to know the even deeper truths of God.

Again, no. I do not discount the normative means being used. My point is that they are used by the Holy Spirit and thus apart of His work of revealing.

It changes because being indwelt you have the Spirit of God within you to lead you into all truth. He is thus no just always there but always working to grow us in grace, faith, and knowledge. This is distinct from the believers because the lost do not have Him indwelling them.

I didn't passover or presume anything. I used the same qualifier that Paul does. While verse 2 states it was made known to him by revelation.. He qualifies what this means or better how the revelation came to be in verse 5.. revealed BY the Spirit of God... While I agree that revelation was brought about the normative means of the word, it was not the word alone, but the Spirit of God revealing the spiritual truths that have been hidden, till the Spirit made them manifest.

Yes, so he could write it to us, those with the Spirit of God in them who can lead and guide them into all truth. Like the Bereans, who double checked Paul's writting against scripture to make sure he was speaking the truth, so to we are to do so with scripture. But how could we know if it was true or not unless the Spirit of God reveal it us like He did to the apostles and prophets.

Again, where does it teach otherwise. As you pointed out, I have supplied scriptures already that address my point. I have not seen any from you regarding the point that we do not need the Spirit of God to reveal or give understanding to His word.. most specifically to the lost, but also the redeemed for continued growth in grace. faith. and truth.

Correct. And since the OT was also a work of the Spirit how come they didn't that which it contained unless it must be revealed? Otherwise how could Paul quote so many OT passages that reveal what was written before hand. It was a mystery (both the coming in of the gentiles -first mystery spoken to here- and the next mystery spoken of was of Christ) because it was there but not yet revealed.
Yet the revelation was imparted by the Holy Spirit via the normative means - the Word - yet they (the apostles) suddenly understood something no one else had up to that point? Why not, as they had the Word. It was because the Spirit of God had not yet made it known.

See, this shows you aren't listening. I have never even insinuated such, and in fact stated the opposite. -we believer have the indwelling - that necessitates the opposite for unbelievers.

Again, your question is based on you not listening.

 

Sure, but I've always interpreted it mean the age in which someone has the mental capacity to grasp the biblical concepts and thus be held to account for them. If the house rules are posted on the wall I don't expect my 2 year old, who can't read, to follow them. I expect my 8 year old to follow them however. Why? Because she can read them and understand them. I've not read where this (admittedly man-made doctrine with which I agree) states that God must supernaturally enable understanding in order for the words of scripture to be believed and obeyed. Is that expounded upon by any scholars you can point me to?

So, it didn't bring them life (and that was PART of your defense for your view of the gospel's insufficiency to save you from age 6-17, which was my only point in making that statement)

So how did the carnal "brethren" in Corinth become brethren? Could it be they accepted what had been revealed through preaching and writings of Paul and the like (the milk of the gospel), but they had yet to understand the "deep things of the spirit" because they had yet to be fully revealed through the normative means of God's inspiring apostles to write God-breathed authoritative scriptures by which they could come to understand these matters more clearly?

Again, God could have just changed Jonah's mind, but he used normative means (storm/big fish). He chooses to use means (preaching, teaching, scripture, church) to reveal his mysteries, provoke man's will, convict the world of sin etc... Nothing is said of an inward secret supernatural working of the HS to accomplish these things. God works through MEANS, which typically involve other people. That is His pleasure and clearly His MO.

Considering these texts I don't see how you could separate the two:

John 6:63
The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. {This verse alone proves that the very spoken words carry the power of life.}

2 Samuel 23:2
"The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."

Acts 4:31
After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

If I, a Spirit indwelled believer, go to a lost man and say, "Repent and believe and you will be saved." Is that a work of God or man? Is that appeal of me or God? Are those my words or His? I'm just a vessel that God by His Spirit works through, so anything accomplished through me is HIS work! So, if I teach my words there is no power, but if I preach the gospel it has the power of God in the truth of those sacred HS wrought words. "The truth will set you free"...not the "truth, which an extra inward supernatural working of the HS, will set you free."

We agree on this point. It would include the preaching, teaching or reading of the gospel truth, not just the bible... The TRUTH will set you free.

Really?

In the confessional statement on your Church's website it reads:

The Scriptures
We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and were given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all Scripture is authoritative, infallible, and inerrant. The Scriptures are fully sufficient and are the supreme authority, in all matters of faith and conduct.

Now, how can the Holy Spirit inspire the Word of God and it not be considered a "working power" of the Holy Spirit? That would be like calling a book you wrote or a house you built, "not your work." Please explain.

Well, as your confessional statement states, the scriptures and the gospel contained within, is a work or product of the HS. I think many verses indicate this and most would seemingly presume it as given knowledge. I mean, who would attempt deny that the gospel is His work?

I'm not denying a work is done internally. Truth moves people inwardly. If I read or hear truth it can provoke my emotions or give me understanding of something I didn't know already. If I got swallowed by a fish and sat there for 3 days after running away from God's command, something inward might change. My will might change and I would obey! Outward moving can bring inward change and revelation, which can be heeded or ignored. I'm only denying that God must do some extra supernatural enabling work in order to make His other clearly revealed work to have affect.


Actually it isn't just the 'deep things of God' but even the simple gospel message as noted in 1 Cor 2:7. 1 Cor 2:10 states these things (all those mysteries, including the gospel) were revealed by God. The context includes all of it and Paul establishes that it is not just the simply but even the deep things of God. Verses 11 and 12 establish this concept that the Spirit of God is the one who must reveal the truth to man.. and that He is given to those who believe to know the even deeper truths of God.

I understand your point. You are saying that the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles, scripture, the foundation of the church and indwells all believers who make up that church which are commanded and given the ability to spread the truths of the gospel to all creatures, but that work of the Holy Spirit isn't enough to bring salvation, but that He needs also to inwardly enlighten the minds of men to understand and respond to all the work already done. I just disagree. I believe God's work by His spirit through all these means is sufficient to accomplish the purpose they are set to accomplish. There is nothing in scripture which would indicate otherwise IMO.

But this is describing the inspiration of scriptures as Paul was writing them, not the enlightening of those who read what he wrote. The reader will gain understanding in what the Spirit choose to reveal to the authority, Paul: "In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ..."

He does reveal it to us, through the apostles and prophets. They were taught by God himself, we believe in God 'through their message.' (Jn 17:20) Once we believe we are seal by the Spirit and granted further understanding into the matters of God...

If all of us were revealed the mysteries of Christ in the same manner Paul was then why would He have apostolic authority?

Why would truth be unable to be understood? I understand that G.W. was our first president, why couldn't I understand that Jesus was the Son of God who died for us? People all over our world believe lies (such as Buddhism), why would you presume they couldn't understand Christianity in the same manner? The only people who can't understand the gospel where those who were being hardened/blinded from understanding (and those were Israel of Christ's day, the Gentiles will listen Acts 28:28).

There were vague references in the OT which were not made manifest until the apostles where inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal those truths. I just think you are making the mistake of equating the inspiration of divinely appointed apostles with your view that God must likewise divinely inspire us to understand what they wrote. This goes back to the questions in those other "fun" threads because couldn't have God just skipped the apostles and made us all understand the OT verses by some inward supernatural working? Of course he could. He chose NORMATIVE means. He chose to reveal the truth to a select view through divine inspiration so they could write it down and testify to it in order for the rest of us to believe.

 

I'm trying to understand you Allan, no need to accuse me of not trying. You wrote, "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. So, I asked if a non-believing scholar can't understand these truths just by reading them but still choose to reject them? How is that an unreasonable question?

It seems to me you are saying that the gospel can be understood if the HS enlighten them, but only those indwelled by the HS can understand the mysteries Paul is speaking of in Eph. 3. Is that right?

 

While there certainly are differences, both are synergistic and leave final salvation in mans hands.

 

How if God is the one who gives the condition?

 

Simple. If man is the one who chooses or rejects God, then final salvation is in mans hands, and God is in Heaven only with a offer, desperatly hoping some come, but without the power to call any.

By the way, I'm new, do you guys mind if I just jump into a conversation? I see things and want to comment. Thanks.

 

Please, do jump right in...the water is great

I will disagree with your premise. If God states salvation will be granted on the condition of accepting or rejecting, final salvation is sovereignly in God's hand.

Also reprobation must be viewed in the same light. If man plays no role in his salvation in your view, he cannot play any role in his reprobation either. I know we both don't believe that, so that leaves your view quite lacking.

 

Not at all, listen to what you just said, "If God states salvation will be granted on the condition of accepting or rejecting", then final salvation is sovereignly in mans accepting or rejecting, and God has no say in it!

As to your second point, we are saved by God grace, nothing more or less. If I am given grace, I will turn and be saved. If someone is not given grace (Reprobation), they will not turn.

 

Trust

Actually it is God's final say that will be saved that those who believe in His Son will be saved. If it was up to man, then they can chose their own way to salvation. It isn't, it is up to God who is saved. This is why God does not consider trusting in God and His word, which is all we have to know we are saved, as work.

 

I'll start with your second statement. If we are not given grace to accept a gift how are we held accountable for accepting it or not? In fact the gift was never bought for us in the first place...yet we are punished for rejecting a gift that was not purchased for us?!

If I buy a gift, wrap it, offer it to you and you accept it...how are you sovereign over the whole process? Were you sovereign over everyone who gives you a gift at Christmas?

 

But, if "God's say" is that men have a say then He is still sovereignly in God's hand.

If I want my daughter to sit in the chair I have the power to force her there. But if I want my daughter to obey my instruction and to sit down by herself does that mean I have lost my power and ability over her? Of course not. I am the one choosing to give her the ability to respond.

But in your view God has also "given" condemnation from birth to all the non-elect for the sin of Adam.

 

Webdog, it's not that difficult. You are guilty of not being elect. If you were elect, then the gift was purchased for you, and you cannot refuse it.

But if you are not elect, then the gift was never intended or purchased for you, and even if it were (but it's not), you cannot possibly accept it.

It's your fault because you are not one of the elect. If you were one of the elect the gift would be for you and you would accept it.

See, it's not difficult to understand at all.

Edit- Your problem is that you do not understand Calvinism and it's logical arguments. I suggest you study videos like this to get a grasp of real Calvinistic logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQCwnoMMqtA&feature=fvst