The Case for Arminianism

Are you invoking moral equivalence with my statements and those of Winman?

Somehow I manage to see a difference between one of the most vile and off-the-wall statements every published on this board and my calling what was written "this sort of nonesense..."

 

No. I am equating moral equivalence to what you and I have both said.

Pot and kettle. Same thing.

You're calling me out and winman out while at the same time laying charges, and rebuking another, namely me, for doing the same as you in stating his apparent attacks as being solely polemic in nature.

I feel perhaps I have the same freedom to do the same.

I am also saying his attacks are nonsense.

For doing what you have done, you say I join his efforts.

 

They don't reconcile, Brother- they just don't. Nor should they. One is taught in the word of God and the other is not.

The only REAL tension I see in the DoG is divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

The "free will" bit is nothing to me because the only version of "free will" that does not fit neatly into the DoG is liberterian free will which is a misnomer.

Free will properly defined as the mind choosing or man being free to do what he wants presents no difficulties whatsoever.

Ecclecticism is certainly NOT what we should pursue.

If the DoG is true then let it stand.

But let's not seek to corrupt it by inculcating pieces of Arminianism here and there to keep down on controversy.

 

The main issue I see is the reluctance of free willers to "give" full Sovereignty to God, over themselves particularly. Somehow they don't seem to approve of God having control over them, from eternity past, until now, and demand their rights.

 

Some try their best to not take a side. But it is a matter of black and white.

• Election is based on a condition that God sees in a man, or it is unconditional.

There is no number 3 to pick from.

• Natural man is unable (dead) to to understanding the gospel and must be born again to come into the Kingdom or Natural man is only sick and need only to listen to the Doctor (gospel message) and learn and then make a choice.

• The atonement is for all of mankind, or it is for the elect only.

• Man can over power God (resist) what God set out to do, (save sinners) or God has an......as the KJV says.."effectual working of his power Ehp 3".....and cannot be overpowered by man.

• Man can overpower the will of God to keep all believers till the end, or Christ has the power to keep them.

 

My sentiments to a tee.

You are one or the other on each of these issues.

There is no middle ground where we all ride winged Pegasus through candy land singing cum ba yah holding hands together with a baby unicorn in our laps on our way to go and buy the world a coke.

That is mythical. On each issue you are one or the other.

 

I think you misunderstand what I am saying...

I am SOLIDLY in the camp of God's sovereignty, and my posts will show that over and again. But what I am saying is that setting one passage of Scripture over against another in order to "prove" one camp or the other is an error, for God is not divided! We have free will, but not libertarian free will. We must encompass the will that God does give us -- that is demonstrated in the Scriptures -- in a way that does not do harm to God's sovereignty, for there is NOTHING, not man, not creation, not Satan, nothing, that stands over God as ultimately sovereign, yet God in His sovereignty has created us with wills that we can exercise -- at least to a point. No softening of any position, just a need to not set Scripture against Scripture. We must reconcile or be something other than biblical!

 

Many are just like me and see both truths. If you want to make it a black and white issue then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm comfortable in the contradiction. Just like the thread asking if salvation is a command or an invitation. I didn't answer because it wouldn't allow me to say "both."

 

The problem is that if you can be both on any one of these issues then NOTHING matters.

Liquid water can be dry, hot can be cold, something can exist and not exist, two things can occupy the same space and the same time...

If we toss out the law of noncontradiction the universe becomes chaos.

 

Hello Bob,

You ask the right question here and as you will see, will damage Arminianism.

I say that God has ALWAYS know, and has not LOOKED to learn ANYTHING from man.

Do you see the problem?

Arminianism teaches that God LOOKS down in time and LEARNS from man what he will do. Man will believe or not believe. Now God can elect the ones that picked him.

Not so...God ALWAYS knew.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

​

So to answer...
Before he creates the man God KNOWS because he decreed it.

 

What is cold?

What is dark?

What is "space"?

 

Have you ever had that sensation when you're so cold that it feels like you're burning?

Or have you ever been at an altitude where water boils when its only luke warm?

Or that certain things can be seen more clearly at night than day?

yep a lot of seemingly contradictory stuff out there but when examined works well.

 

This thread reminds me of Psalm 2.

 

But is there "something" such as "cold," "dark," or "space?"

 

Gil :thumbs: Amen, Amen, Amen

 

None of these are contradictions.

 

1. absence of heat

2. absence of light

3. absence of matter

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! :smilewinkgrin:

Yet, we treat these non-substances as if they are substances.

Can we apply the same concept to "evil?" Or is "evil" the absence of God?