Thoughts on Arminianism (for a change)

"IF anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the DOOR -- I WILL then come in and fellowship with them" Rev 3:20

"TO AS MANY AS RECIEVED HIM - to THEM He gave the right to be called the sons of God" John 1

"WHOSOEVER BELIEVES on Him might be saved" john 3:16

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that [b]if you confess[/b] with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and [b]with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/b]
11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES[/b] IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

 

I think you are confused here Bob. Most Calvinists do not believe that God "busts" down the door as you describe but rather regenerates man so that he is willing to believe.

Besides, this verse was written to the church. Do you believe that the church is unsaved and needs to let Jesus in?

I wasn't aware of any Bible besides the one I have.

 

Which of these do you think is incompatible with Calvinism? I find them all to be very much in line with Calvinism.

 

No you cannot say that. That is a converse statment, and the converse and inverse of immutable truth cannot be assumed as also being immutable truth. One major flaw of calvinism that leads to reinterpreting Scripture. If I give you this presumed truthful statment "everyone named Pastor Larry eats chicken", you cannot honestly tell me the converse of that statement can be said with "certainty" as also being truth (eveyone not named Pastor Larry hates chicken). This is whay you are doing with the passages in John.

You mean like you did in falsely assuming a converse statment holds as much truth as the original? I'm sorry, but you don't even see the error to which you hold.

 

Yes, it can. It depends on the statement in its context. Logically, a statement of total affirmation also makes a negation. If I say "Everyone who is drawn comes," then that makes a negation that those who do not come were not drawn.

There are some affirmations that do not work that way. If I say "Everyone named Larry likes chicken," then all Larrys like chicken. That says nothing about people who are not named Larry. It does say, however, that there is no one named Larry who does not like Chicken. So the converse is still true, depending on which part of the sentence your negate.

I would be interested in any place you can show that Calvinism does this. (I agree some Calvinists do this at places, but they are not essential to Calvinism). So far, all your attempts to show this have fallen short.

You have drawn an invalid analogy.

First, you changed terms of the discussion. Your first statement was "eats chicken;" your second statement was "hates chicken." Someone may eat chicken, but hate it. Your side commonly does this in the Calvinism debate with things such as "regeneration" and "salvation" and "justification." These terms are not the same. You say that because we believe someone is regenerated before faith, therefore they are saved before faith. That shows you don't understand the distinction between regeneration and salvation and justification.

Second, your analogy is invalid in that it does not fully account for the statements of Jesus. If I say, "No one except people named Larry like chicken; All people named Larry like chicken," then we have covered both sides. Jesus did just that. He said certain people "don't like chicken" (v. 65). But he also says that everyone who is drawn "likes chicken" (v. 44; again, just using your analogy). Or to use the verses that use the same words, in v. 65, he says no one can come unless granted by the father, and in v. 37, he says all that the father grants will come." So both sides of the issue are clearly delineated by Jesus, where in your example they weren't.

So here is the question: Based on v. 65, will anyone come who has not been given by the Father? The answer must be "no" correct?

Let's follow up: Based on v. 37, if someone is given by the Father, what will they do? Come, right?

So we can see that God the Father is in control of who comes by the act of "giving." In fact, Jesus says that he knew from the beginnign that some would not come.. Sounds to me like they didn't have a chance.

So we can see, simply by dealing with the words of Jesus, that he addresses the very thing that you argue against.

Then show it to me. Because what I showed above was that your analogy using chicken was not a true converse statement, nor was it analogous to what Jesus actually said.

You see, Jesus gives us both sides of the statement. It appears that you deny one side.

Do you believe that those who are not drawn can come?

 

From edc.org A conditional statement is one that can be put in the form if A, then B where A is called the premise (or antecedent) and B is called the conclusion (or consequent). We can convert the above statement into this standard form: If an American city is great, then it has at least one college. The advertisers then share with us that Worcester has ten colleges, that is, that it satisfies the conclusion of the statement. They hope that we will then conclude that Worcester is great. Leaving aside the truth of that conclusion, it is not a logical deduction. Just because a premise implies a conclusion, that does not mean that the converse statement, if B, then A, must also be true. We do not need to accept the statement, "if an American city has at least one college, then it is great."
Why do we often fall into this trap (known as a converse error)? Because, everyday comments often carry an unstated second meaning. If we say "If it is raining, then I carry my umbrella," then people have some reason to assume the converse statement as well as the inverse (if not A, then not B), "if it is not raining, then I do not carry my umbrella." If these were not the case, you might just as well have said, "I carry my umbrella all of the time!" However, the truth of the inverse and converse of a statement are logically unrelated to the truth of the initial statement. Consider the true mathematical statement, "if a figure is a square, then it is a rectangle," which has false converse and inverse statements.

You did it in John.

What I supplied was the inverse instead of the converse. The inverse and converse are both invalid, in either case. The converse is still false "eveyone who eats chicken is named Pastor Larry".

You are correct, I supplied the inverse by mistake. The converse...as I originally stated...is also still false.

No, you just add another side to the immutable one Jesus supplied. I do deny the eisegetical one you supplied.

 

Webdog,

First, your logical appeals fall short because Jesus addressed both the inverse and the statement. Do you not see that?

Second, you have not shown any place where I eisegeted or reinterpreted Scripture. "You did it in John" is not helpful. Where did I do it in John?

Third, you completely ignored the substance of the discussion in favor of addressing something else. Let me repeat it, in hopes that you will address it.

Based on v. 65, will anyone come who has not been given by the Father?

Based on v. 37, if someone is given by the Father, what will they do?

Based on v. 37, which comes first: the giving or the coming?

Based on vv. 37, 44, and 65: Is there anyone who is given but does not come?

Perhaps stay out of the discussion on logic and stick with Scripture. That will be more profitable.

 

No because it's not there.

Applying the converse is just that...eisegesis. I can't believe you cannot (or refuse) see it. Where in John? The passages I initially replied to.

Is verse 65 still based on 64 (But there are some of you who do not believe.) What, then, is the basis for being "given"? Not what you imply.

Come to Christ.

Neither, based on the whole of John 6. Jesus explains it quite well in verse 44, it's the "drawing". One isn't given...then drawn.

After faith in Christ? Of course not. That's a silly statment. What 37, 44 and 65 do NOT say is those who don't come were never drawn.

...or better yet, apply the right kind of logic instead of the faulty kind, and the Scripture will make more sense.

 

Actually, it is. Have you even read this passage? It doesn’t seem like it.

John 6:37"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,
John 6:44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
John 6:65no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

How in the world can you get your position from this?

Here’s the inverse: “If drawn/given, will come” (v. 37); “If not drawn/given, will not come (actually cannot, a word of ability)” (v. 44, 65).

Here’s the converse: “If drawn/given, will come” (v. 37); “if come, was drawn” (v. 65, 44).

Now, Christ was not thinking of this in terms of converse and inverse, but he made these categorical statements that you seem to deny. I don’t see your objection to it, either on theological or exegetical grounds.

I didn’t apply the converse. All I have done is quote Jesus, and I have done it again. You think I made this up?

It is because it isn’t true. Read what Jesus said. He said it; not me.

You have yet to show any reinterpretation or eisegesis. At best, you have shown that you don’t read and comprehend very well. I say it that way because the only other option would be deliberate twisting, and I don’t think you would do that.

I didn’t imply anything. Jesus doesn’t give a basis. In v. 64 he says, “Some of you won’t come” (he doesn’t actually say it); in v. 65 he gives the reason: You have been given by the Father. (He does state that.)

Now here is an absolutely indefensible and unconscionable response. First, to say “neither comes first” is absurd. One has to come first. Second, the first says clearly that the “giving” precedes the coming: All that are given will come. The “will” make the coming future to the giving.

So if “all who are drawn come,” what should we conclude about those who do not come? If they were drawn, the “all drawn” do not come and Christ is a liar. How can you avoid that?

You are the only one in this conversation making no sense. You won’t deal with the text of Scripture. You make absurd statements about Scripture when Scripture plainly declares something. It seems like you have never thoughtfully read the passage. I find that hard to believe, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who has thoughtfully read it can conclude as you do.

And there is an answer that is your only escape. But you haven't given it yet, that I have seen.

 

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

HP: Pardon me Pastor, but where does it say that all who are drawn will come??

 

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

If the Father gives him, he will come. And no one will come unless the Father gives him. The giving precedes the coming. And those who are drawn will be raised up at the last day. That means they must have come.

Now again, here is what is confusing to me, HP. You have taken a very adamant position on this. And yet you are asking basic questions about what our position believes.

How can you be so dogmatic if you do not even know what the other side holds to? Don't you think it would be wise to figure out what we believe and why we believe it before rejecting it out of hand? I do. Which is why I have taken time, and try to regularly take time to read Arminians. I want to know what you guys believe from your own mouths.

 

Here we see the Calvinist argument coming in that we should NOT find in scripture a SEQUENCE where the PERSON does something that THEN results in salvation.

Obviously this is the position taken by Arminians and found in scripture - and denied by 3 and 4 Point Calvinists. (I am not sure that 3pointers would deny it)
(
So I THEN point out the VERY SEQUENCE that Calvinists claim "should not exist" --

"IF anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the DOOR -- I WILL then come in and fellowship with them" Rev 3:20

"TO AS MANY AS RECIEVED HIM - to THEM He gave the right to be called the sons of God" John 1

"WHOSOEVER BELIEVES on Him might be saved" john 3:16

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that [b]if you confess[/b] with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and [b]with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/b]
11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES[/b] IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

Where upon Pastor Larry abandons the argument --

Pastor Larry said
Which of these do you think is incompatible with Calvinism? I find them all to be very much in line with Calvinism.



It is left as an exercise for the reader - to note the obvious problem with that response.

in Christ,

Bob.

 

Who denies the sequences that salvation results from faith? I presume that is your point. It is what Calvinism also believes. So I am not sure who you are addressing here.

For evidence, I submit the Westminster Confession of Faith, which no one has ever accused of being Arminian. By this, you can see that Calvinists mst certainly do believe that one must believe in order to be saved.

WCF 7.3 Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,(1) commonly called the Covenant of Grace, whereby He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;(2) and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.(3)

WCF 11:2 Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;(1)

WCF 13:3 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,

WCF 14:2 But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.(5)

WCF 15:1 Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace,(1) the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.(2) 

What argument? Have you actually made one? Have you pointed out a distinction between you and Calvinists? Aside from misusing Rev 3:20, you haven't, so far as I can see.

It apparently isn't so obvious ... unless you have to be uninformed for it to be obvious.

It again stuns me how many of you with such great opposition to Calvinism don't know what you are talking about. There are good reasons to be uncomfortable with Calvinism. I at times struggle with some of them, but I have yet to find scriptural reason to abandon them. But at least object to the real reasons. Don't object to the stuff that people don't believe.

There are a few people here who do not believe in "duty faith," that you must believe to be saved. They believe you will be saved whether you beleive or not, or in fact that you are already saved, even if you have not yet believed. That, however, is not Calvinism. Most of them will not even claim to be Calvinists.

So Bob, why do you present continually, the idea that Calvinism says you are saved before you believe? Surely you know better by this time.

 

Is it in the nature of a malefactor to turn to God, or did God work a change in his heart?

 

Revelation 3:20 was written to the members of the church at Laodicea, calling believers to repentence, not to the unconverted in the world. Verse 19 is needed to understand the immediate context. Verse 22 helps alot also, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. " I don't know who started using that as an evangelical passage, but they need some serious hermanutic help. My bet is Wesley or Finney.

 

Quote:
HP: Pardon me Pastor, but where does it say that all who are drawn will come??

HP: Between what words is the word ‘drawn’ to be penumbrally understood?

HP: There is not the slightest indication in this verse that if the Father draws him he will come that I can see. Explain to the list where your interpretation is stated or implied.

 

HP: As I recall Jesus spoke of wheat and tares, and they should be allowed to grow together. Show me a church that is not made up of both categories of individuals. When a church is addressed, one can not automatically assume that there are not lost or tares in that church. Don't overlook the reality of those that are deceived as well, thinking themselves to be right with God while they in reality are not.

 

That's not what I was assuming at all. I'm very well aware that there are wheat and tares inside the church, you can read my posts in the earlier Calvinism thread to see that. What I was saying is, this verse isn't to the whole unconverted world as BobRyan and others say, it's to the Laodicean church, exhorting them to repent.

 

HP: God brought influences to bear upon his heart, and the malefactor utilized the abilities God granted to him as a free moral agent to repent and believe. The 'work' of salvation was wrought in his heart by God as a result of the malefactor fulfilling the conditions God set forth for salvation.

 

HP: 2Ti 3:16 ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” That verse instructs any unrepentant individual to repent.