Arminian Grace

[Luke2427]

Okay, I'll bite.

Your OP doesn't describe what I believe. There now, feel better. Good. Now answer a question for me:

Why do we need we a name for our theology?

The same reason you need a name for anything.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Which is proof that it is.

And you keep saying that doesn't make it so.

I could call my neighbor a thief and a liar. I could call him that all day long. I could print it in the paper, have billboards put up, and even call the police.

But my inane repetition doesn't make it so. I have to PROVE it. And, if my neighbor does not respond to me, his silence doesn't make my accusations true either.

Go back to my last post. I gave you what you wanted. You won't accept it nor believe me, but there is it in black and white (well, blue and blue).

That's my last crumb that I am throwing you. You aren't looking for a meeting of the minds, but only a fight. And you will only get one if people who aren't Calvinists actually believe what you say in your OP. And they don't. You don't want to hear people say what they believe if it doesn't line up with your pre-conceived opinion of them. There's no fight in that.

Read my edited post. Tear it to shreds or whatever melts your butter. C'est la vie.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, I hadn't responded yet because I figured you had read the link where you posted the poem from. They did an ample job critiquing that ridiculous caricature of a song.

Here is what the link in the original OP goes on to say for those who didn't see it, its got footnotes and everything. What else needs to be said?

Could not, however, some of those polemics be turned on the Calvinist? "What grace is it that calls for choice . . ." Was not the Calvinist "made willing" to choose Christ? Or has the Calvinist made no choice for Christ whatsoever? "That part that chose to heed God's voice, Proved stronger than my sin." Ibid.

The rest of the re-worked masterpiece is just rubbish. It is no more true of Arminianism than it is of Calvinism. But once again we have yet another example of a Calvinist's caricature of Arminianism, exhibiting his confusion of Arminianism with Pelagianism because he is either too ignorant (in the classical sense of the word) or too lazy to investigate the matter any further.

The Lord be praised for careful, Calvinist pastors and theologians (such as R. C. Sproul and Richard A. Muller) who take the time to study Arminius and Arminianism, and accurately represent Arminian theology, even though their convictions side with Calvinism. Muller noted, "The undeniably scholastic approach of Arminius to theology provides . . . a clue to the problem of the phenomenon of Reformed and Protestant scholasticism in general.

"The fact that Arminius, who did not follow the Reformed down the path of radical monergism and strict predestinarianism, is as scholastic in his theological method and as apt to draw on scholastic categories in the discussions of divine essence, attributes, and work ad extra as his Reformed adversaries demonstrates the incongruity of the thesis found in much earlier scholarship that the rise of a scholastic Protestantism was related in an almost casual way to the development of the Reformed doctrine of predestination."1

Arminius' contribution to Reformed Protestantism has, sadly, been neglected by those who have claimed to follow his theological method. Many who call themselves Arminian today know very little of Arminius, let alone the theology which he taught; and Calvinists know even less.

R. C. Sproul wrote, "As a Calvinist I frequently hear criticisms of Calvinistic thought that I would heartily agree with if indeed they represented Calvinism. So, I am sure, the disciples of Arminius suffer the same fate and become equally frustrated."2

Is Arminian theology tantamount to Pelagianism, or even Semi-Pelagianism? Can sinners merely choose to believe (of their own free will) in Christ Jesus whenever they please, as the above hymn caricatures? Sproul writes, "James Arminius was emphatic in his rejection of Pelagianism, particularly with respect to the fall of Adam. The fall leaves man in a ruined state, under the dominion of sin . . .

"He [Arminius] is not satisfied to declare that man's will was merely wounded or weakened. He insists that it was 'imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.' The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius . . .

"Arminius not only affirms the bondage of the will, but insists that natural man, being dead in sin, exists in a state of moral inability or impotence. What more could an Augustinian or Calvinist hope for from a theologian? Arminius then declares that the only remedy for man's fallen condition is the gracious operation of God's Spirit. The will of man is not free to do any good unless it is made free or liberated by the Son of God through the Spirit of God."3

It does the reader well to keep in mind that neither Sproul nor Muller agree with Arminius' conclusions logically, philosophically, or theologically. But they do recognize, however, that Arminius was an orthodox, Reformed scholar whose teachings do not reflect those of Pelagius or his followers, nor many who call themselves Arminian in modern times.

It is rather easy to say what grace is not, but that is really no help to the student of Scripture. We have already concluded on this site that grace is not regeneration (Col. 2:13). So, what is grace? God's grace that brings salvation (upon the condition of faith in Christ Jesus) must not be thought of as tangible; it is spiritual, not something that can be "given," in the strict sense of the word.

A sinner cannot experience grace with his five senses. What did Paul teach? Our Lord Jesus Christ is the One "through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (Rom. 5.2). How does one stand in the grace of God? Paul teaches that faith is the answer. He also warned people not to receive God's grace in vain (2 Cor. 6:1). He himself admitted that he did not "nullify" the grace of God (Gal. 2:21), but made use of His grace by faith in Christ.

Salvation is God's grace to mankind (granted to those who will trust Christ, Eph. 2:5, 8). Jesus Himself was full of grace (John 1:14, 17) and we have all received grace upon grace (John 1:16). Justification is God's grace to sinners (granted to those who will trust Christ, Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7). These graces must be received (Rom. 5:17; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 2:21). "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all" (Titus 2:11).

God the Father is the God of all grace (1 Pet. 5:10). The Son of God is full of grace (John 1:14). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29). God graced mankind by sending His Son into the world to save him by faith. The Son graciously laid down His life in order to reconcile man back to God to save him by faith. The Spirit graciously draws man to the Savior to save him by faith. All of salvation is of grace from first to last.

The grace that saves is found in Christ alone (2 Tim. 2:1; Philm. v. 25). This is not just Arminian Grace, it is biblical grace. It is not regeneration, but it is grace which leads one toward repentance and regeneration (Rom. 2:4), so that he or she may be made into a new creature by faith in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17; John 3:3-8), to the glory of God alone.

1 Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 275.

2 R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 126.

3 Ibid., 125, 126, 128.

 

[Luke2427]

And you keep saying that doesn't make it so.

I could call my neighbor a thief and a liar. I could call him that all day long. I could print it in the paper, have billboards put up, and even call the police.

But my inane repetition doesn't make it so. I have to PROVE it. And, if my neighbor does not respond to me, his silence doesn't make my accusations true either.

Go back to my last post. I gave you what you wanted. You won't accept it nor believe me, but there is it in black and white (well, blue and blue).

That's my last crumb that I am throwing you. You aren't looking for a meeting of the minds, but only a fight. And you will only get one if people who aren't Calvinists actually believe what you say in your OP. And they don't. You don't want to hear people say what they believe if it doesn't line up with your pre-conceived opinion of them. There's no fight in that.

Read my edited post. Tear it to shreds or whatever melts your butter. C'est la vie.

So you perpetuate your avoidance.

 

[Winman]

And how about the guy who hears but doesnt comprehend...or worse ignores?

Winman said:

"In order to come to Jesus, you must have heard of him. How do you hear about Jesus? From God's word given to us by the Father. And every man who hears, that is listens and believes, who is taught, shall come to Christ."

Those are fair questions. The gospel is simple, a child can understand, but perhaps some do have difficulty. I believe God will show grace to these persons if they have a desire to understand. An example is the apostles themselves, often they did not understand Jesus's parables any better than the scribes and Pharisees. The difference is they had a desire to understand and asked Jesus to explain them. This is how grace works, if you respond to it, more will be given, but to those who are indifferent, even that which was given shall be taken away.

This is what the parable of the talents shows. If you will receive what Jesus gives you and put it to use, more will be given. If you do not, your coin (talent) shall be taken away.

As for the handicapped, I know of mentally retarded people who are believers and understand the gospel well. The severely retarded would not be accountable.

For those that ignore the gospel, that is altogether different, they do so at their own peril.

 

[menageriekeeper]

The same reason you need a name for anything.

Really and what makes you think that?

My snake doesn't have a name and he lives happily enough. He has a title that describes his biological standing as a creature, but he doesn't have a name. And he lives quite happily in my downstairs hall, all without a name. Apparently, naming a snake takes something away from its prestige as an unusual pet. (the boy children came up with that one)

So if you'd like a title you are welcome to call what I believe, "Cindi's Beliefs". Now they have a title. Hate that its not descriptive enough to illustrate each individual theological point I hold to, but that's the breaks. Just as the word snake only gives you a bare description of the creature that lives in my hall, you'll have to deal with the idea that "Cindi's Beliefs" only describe those points which I myself believe. I don't believe that anyone else must hold to "Cindi's Beliefs" but they work for me and you'll get used to the frustration.

Now, answer the questions: Why do you believe that people must ascribe to a historic theological viewpoint which is described by using the man's name who came up with them in the first place? Is it not enough to simply believe what the Bible says? Are you attempting to be my "high priest" by telling me what I must or must not believe and how I should title those beliefs?

I gotta go to church!

 

[Luke2427]

Really and what makes you think that?

My snake doesn't have a name and he lives happily enough. He has a title that describes his biological standing as a creature, but he doesn't have a name. And he lives quite happily in my downstairs hall, all without a name. Apparently, naming a snake takes something away from its prestige as an unusual pet. (the boy children came up with that one)

So if you'd like a title you are welcome to call what I believe, "Cindi's Beliefs". Now they have a title. Hate that its not descriptive enough to illustrate each individual theological point I hold to, but that's the breaks. Just as the word snake only gives you a bare description of the creature that lives in my hall, you'll have to deal with the idea that "Cindi's Beliefs" only describe those points which I myself believe. I don't believe that anyone else must hold to "Cindi's Beliefs" but they work for me and you'll get used to the frustration.

Now, answer the questions: Why do you believe that people must ascribe to a historic theological viewpoint which is described by using the man's name who came up with them in the first place? Is it not enough to simply believe what the Bible says? Are you attempting to be my "high priest" by telling me what I must or must not believe and how I should title those beliefs?

I gotta go to church!

You don't even have a TITLE for what you believe.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Okay, I'll bite.

Your OP doesn't describe what I believe. There now, feel better. Good. Now answer a question for me:

Why do we need we a name for our theology?

In order to define it, provide some characteristics & definition......so it doesnt continue to mutate!

 

[drfuss]

You don't even have a TITLE for what you believe.

Non-Cals believe in the Doctrine of Grace, the Doctrine of Mercy and the Doctrine of Salvation. You can pick which title or combine all three into one title.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Non-Cals believe in the Doctrine of Grace, the Doctrine of Mercy and the Doctrine of Salvation. You can pick which title or combine all three into one title.

Huh.....Those are my beliefs & I'm considered Calvinistic? What am I missing?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[webdog]

What's there to respond to? A smart-mouth criticism that's not even true - that's not even what non-Calvinists believe? A purposeful lie about what people believe that was only intended to get a rise out of people? And you want people to respond to that?

Why should people respond in serious debate or serious conversations that could edify when the original post was nothing more than a mocking attack that gives NO evidence of desiring a response?

I'm only responding to tell you that I am quite good with words. I'm sure that in the next 30 minutes that I could come up with some little poem that cruelly satires and mocks Calvinists and really goes for the jugular. But I won't. That type of thing doesn't appeal to me.

Non-Calvinists do not believe in "hidden good" that saves. They do not believe that salvation "hinges" on them and they do not believe that they will go to heaven because of what they have "done."

At least be intellectually honest ......

... all you are looking for with that OP is a fight.

I only saw his post because you quoted it, but the reason I didn't respond is...

This message is hidden because Luke2427 is on your ignore list.

 

[Allan]

You don't even have a TITLE for what you believe.

Then she falls into great company as there was not no 'names' for one theology for nearly 1500's in church history. It is a 'new' vise, a new fad, a new band wagon to jump on.

You go Girl!!
Hold fast to what has been and still true. Some like names, others understand that names give no real worth to theology except to aid in knowing what another 'potentially' holds to and nothing more.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I don't have a title for what I believe? I gave you one: "Cindi's Beliefs". That covers everything I believe about scripture.

But here's another question for the list I've already asked:

Which scripture passage teaches that I MUST have a title for all the doctrines/beliefs I hold to or says I must hold to a systematic theology?

You go Girl!!
Hold fast to what has been and still true.

Thank you Allan, I plan to!

 

[Gershom]

What is tragic is that Skandelon and the other arms and nameless theology guys cannot respond to this post because they actually believe the vast majority of that version of the song.

Couldn't be that responding to such a stupid post is a complete waste of time?

 

[quantumfaith]

What's there to respond to? A smart-mouth criticism that's not even true - that's not even what non-Calvinists believe? A purposeful lie about what people believe that was only intended to get a rise out of people? And you want people to respond to that?

Why should people respond in serious debate or serious conversations that could edify when the original post was nothing more than a mocking attack that gives NO evidence of desiring a response?

I'm only responding to tell you that I am quite good with words. I'm sure that in the next 30 minutes that I could come up with some little poem that cruelly satires and mocks Calvinists and really goes for the jugular. But I won't. That type of thing doesn't appeal to me.

Non-Calvinists do not believe in "hidden good" that saves. They do not believe that salvation "hinges" on them and they do not believe that they will go to heaven because of what they have "done."

At least be intellectually honest ......

... all you are looking for with that OP is a fight.

Oh such true and insightful words. Thanks for the post.

 

[quantumfaith]

And here is another problem. Since you guys do not have nameable theology you cannot say that it is not what "non-cals" believe.

A "non-cal" is anyone who is not Calvinist.

Catholics are "non-cal".

Jehovah's Witnesses are "non-cal".

Satan worshipers are "non-cal".

And many Baptists are "non-cal".

So you don't KNOW what "non-cals" believe.

All you can say is what "non-cals" do NOT believe.



Addressed above.






Pin a rose on your nose.



Yes they do.

Your lack of decorum and manners never cease to amaze me.

 

[Skandelon]

Your lack of decorum and manners never cease to amaze me.

Well, give Luke some credit, the link he provided in the OP completely debunked the very song he quoted. I like this part the best:

"The rest of the re-worked masterpiece is just rubbish. It is no more true of Arminianism than it is of Calvinism. But once again we have yet another example of a Calvinist's caricature of Arminianism, exhibiting his confusion of Arminianism with Pelagianism because he is either too ignorant (in the classical sense of the word) or too lazy to investigate the matter any further."

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, give Luke some credit, the link he provided in the OP completely debunked the very song he quoted. I like this part the best:

"The rest of the re-worked masterpiece is just rubbish. It is no more true of Arminianism than it is of Calvinism. But once again we have yet another example of a Calvinist's caricature of Arminianism, exhibiting his confusion of Arminianism with Pelagianism because he is either too ignorant (in the classical sense of the word) or too lazy to investigate the matter any further."

:thumbs::thumbs::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Benjamin]

 

[Luke2427]

Then she falls into great company as there was not no 'names' for one theology for nearly 1500's in church history. It is a 'new' vise, a new fad, a new band wagon to jump on.

You go Girl!!
Hold fast to what has been and still true. Some like names, others understand that names give no real worth to theology except to aid in knowing what another 'potentially' holds to and nothing more.

That's because everybody was catholic Allen.

There was ONE theology.

When the Church desperately needed reformation and other movements were born it became NECESSARY to label what you believe.

Your post is silly to the highest degree. OF COURSE there were no labels when there was just ONE CHURCH.

Do you call yourself a BAPTIST? Or do you consider that to be a pointless fad that has popped up in the last few hundred years too?

Do you think that ALL denominations should abandon this "fad"?