Counsel Wanted for My Theological Conclusions

I'm back and my power is now on. I still have lots of cleaning up to do after the hurricane though. As for my previous thread, I do believe now that OSAS does not work with even limited choice. Thus, this is where I currently stand with my own beliefs due to my research of the bible and the need to be logically consistent. Of course, these beliefs still need to go through the crucible and to be honest I am not fully convinced by them:

• Although man is fallen, he is not entirely incapacitated by the sinful nature and can choose to put faith in Jesus Christ. However, his sinful nature before being given a new heart and new spirit greatly incapacitates his ability to do and understand the good.
• God makes a plea to all men that they repent, put faith in Jesus, and be saved.
• Jesus bore the sin of all mankind, but not everyone will want Jesus as their king. As a result, many will be rejected who Jesus died for.
• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
• A person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

This almost makes me a straight Arminian, but I do not believe in something as hokey as God looked ahead to see who would love Him. I try to avoid defining how the Lord's foreknowledge works, as His ways are unimaginably higher than mine.

Please counsel me on these views so that I may be sharpened.

I did get one challenge from TCassidy to these views in my last thread and I decided to include that challenge and my response in this thread.

TCassidy Said:

You can't have it both ways. If you admit even a tiny work then your grace is made null and void.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

Steven Yeadon Replied:

That is a clever retort using two verses I did not know about.

That said, I have done some research and thought for a little on your argument.

1. Here I will reference (Romans 4:1-8). These verses show that Paul does not regard faith as a work, but in fact he contrasts faith with works throughout this passage. A passage in the same letter as the two verses you use. He answers an important question I have about Abraham that I formulated after wrestling with the verses you used. That question is: did Abraham's faith earn him standing before God? The answer is clearly no in (Romans 4:2-3), even though he believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness.

2. The broader context of (Romans 11:1-12) speaks to the Israelites being hardened so that grace could come to the gentiles, but in verses 11-12 we are told that this is not necessarily meant to be a permanent stumbling as how great would it be to fully include an envious Israel with the gentiles.

The shocking thing is I believe I know from my research why the original Arminians concluded that this was a biblical position, as they formulated their five points before Calvin did, who responded to their perceived heresy. This is one of only two comprehensive view points on these issues that seem to work at biblical exegesis. The other viewpoint being Calvinism.​

 

Wow, my church history class notes fail again.

I am very sorry about the confusion.

 

These verses from the last thread really challenge me and I wanted to note them so I can come back later.

 

TCassidy, I am very sorry if you think my reply was flippant. It was not meant to be. In my mind as someone doing bible study, I believe the two points I raised using the bible successfully diffused your two verses. I honestly believe that Arminianism is the more biblical stance based on my bible study, when I began thinking I would be a converted Calvinist through such a study.

You state I am being unfaithful to the Word in my viewpoint, but as far as I can tell Arminians and Calvinists have plenty of verses and intelligent interpretations on each other's side. It feels like you are almost plainly saying that Arminianism is an utterly unbiblical stance to you? If that is true, then do you tolerate Arminianism as an honest mistake in your view?

 

Moderators posting this thread was a mistake, and I have arrived at my conclusion to this matter and begun a new thread over in Baptist Theology and Bible Study.

I post my version of TULIP and hopefully this thread can be locked:

• Man's will is sinful and he cannot do good deeds that are considered anything more than filthy rags to the Lord.
• God makes a plea to the world through His convicting Spirit that they repent, put faith in Jesus, and be saved. This supernatural conviction allows people to choose to put faith in Jesus the Christ.
• Jesus bore the sin of all mankind, but not everyone will want Jesus as their king. As a result, many will be rejected who Jesus died for.
• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
• "Born again, Spirit-indwelled" believers are eternally secure because the Spirit of God lives inside them, perfecting them. However, the common presentation that our salvation is a guarantee that should give us tons of peace is false. The bible tells us over and over again that our salvation is a gift to be confirmed by living out life in fear and trembling over what it would mean to prove false.

 

I absolutely believe we all deserve hell for our sins. However, the Lord in His righteousness and justice has provided Jesus, His Son, to us to be a sacrifice that takes away our sins. It is how we respond to the Spirit's conviction over sin, righteousness, and Judgement that is instrumental in where we wind up after death.

Also, after thinking on it, I do believe that my turn to being an Arminian rests on the following statement:

• The grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

You also mention Judas, who has an Old Testament parallel in Pharaoh. These two people make me wonder if I am wrong, but to me the preponderance of the verses of the bible point to Arminian theology and not Calvinism. Thus, it seems these people still had some level of choice over their eternity that they exercised poorly.

 

Yeah, I'm in Orlando.

 

I'm just going with the preponderance of scripture.

Why do we even have the OSAS verses and the anti-OSAS verses? Both must be reconciled fully without mental gymnastics that seem out of place.

To me, my current understanding is that it was the fear of proving false, and thus going to hell, that the anti-OSAS verses are addressing. It seems to me that in the New Testament you had to endure testing, which would prove yourself in the faith, and thus let everyone see clearly if you were written in the Lamb's Book of Life by your deeds. But, all along it was a given whether you would endure or not, because the new Spirit and new heart you were given testified to whether you had heartfelt faith or not.

This interpretation figures out so many OSAS and anti-OSAS verses to me its just wild. So I go with it for now until I find a better interpretation.