Calvinism

The last sentence of "article 5" is key.
A true Classical Arminian only uses 4 articles.

 

Taking TOTAL DEPRAVITY (INABILITY) off the table as a point of Classic Arminian and Calvinist agreement and PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS off the table as a point left open ended in Classic Arminianism, that just leaves ...

Unconditional vs Conditional Election

Limited vs Unlimited Atonement (Article 2)

Irresistible vs Resistible Grace

... to be discussed according to the 5 Articles.

 

Just to state the obvious, Article 3 completely agrees with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Inability.

 

I apologize for not reading your signature line (I generally ignore them) and reading your post through my own Calvinist colored lenses.

To address your statement directly:

"may" is the term commonly employed when a choice is involved (as in "you may apply for a parking permit at the main office") so "through the grace of the Holy Ghost, may believe on this his son Jesus" would be the wording indicating that the Holy Spirit offered the person a choice to believe or not to believe.

"shall" is the term used when one has no choice (as in "you shall appear before the court on June 15th") so "through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus" indicates that belief is not an option.

Later articles argue that grace may be resisted, but 'shall believe' does not mean "enable", it means "compels". The fact that you read 'shall' as 'may' illustrates the "wishy-washy" nature of the wording.

 

Two points of Arminianism ring true, Christ died for all mankind, and not a pre-selected subset. God chooses for salvation individuals who believe in Christ.

And Calvinism has only one point that rings true, once saved, always saved.

Both viewpoints deny the unregenerate can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel. They add in enablement through either irresistible grace or prevenient grace.

Both viewpoints accept that we were chosen individually for salvation before the foundation of the world, and ignore all the verses that teach we are chosen for salvation during our lifetime. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches we are chosen through faith in the truth, and we must be alive and exposed to the gospel to put our faith in Christ. James 2:5 teaches God chooses those rich in faith and also love God, conditions that exist during our lifetime. The only way to resolve this difficulty is to accept Ephesians 1:4 refers to a corporate and not individual election.

But it is impossible to resolve this problem because none of the advocates actually developed through study these viewpoints, they just accept the viewpoints developed about 400 years ago.

 

The P was in response to the Remonstrant (Arminianism).

 

Your conclusion, in my opinion, does a disservice to those who hold both opposing viewpoints. It seems more than a bit arrogant to assume that you are the only one who has actually "studied" scripture to arrive at their position and everyone else has failed to grasp your obvious right answer because they are all blinded by 400 year old doctrines.

As a point of fact, I was raised atheist, heard the Gospel and learned to read the bible under Wesleyan Arminianism (Church of God) and reached 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism from reading scripture before I ever heard the term "Calvinist" or "Arminian". I had never given any thought one way or another to who Christ died for (Limited vs Universal Atonement) ... it was enough to know that Jesus had died for me.

Romans 9 disagrees with you.

... or these verses speak of HOW God saves rather than WHEN God first loved, as in:

[Rom 8:28-30 NASB] 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
​

Redefining what contradictory verses "really mean" is what you complain the Calvinists and Arminians do.
That is ONE WAY to resolve the difficulty, but not the "only way".

 

. I don't believe man has fallen. Because the Bible says we are not held responsible for the sins of our fathers. I believe man was created with the propensity to sin no doubt because if he had been created with out that propensity to sin he would not have sinned. I also disagree with the idea of perseverance. I am kept, preserved, by God Him Self. For ever is, well,,, forever. It just keeps going on and on there is no end to it. It's that word persevere. It implies work. Romans 4:5 says I'm counted for righteousness with out works.
I also disagree with the leaving of unbelievers in there sins. Preaching the gospel to the unbelievers we are commanded to do. And if we have preached the gospel to them, then they have no excuse.
MB

 

Up to this point, THIS Particular Baptist has no issues with Article 4.

... HERE is where the controversy comes into play. I find it interesting that they referenced an entire chapter as proof of men resisting the Holy Spirit, so I went looking at Acts 7 to try and see what they saw. I hope they were not equating the description of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. That would be a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since "the covenant of which [Jesus] is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises" [Heb 8:6] However, I did find this interesting paragraph ...

51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. 52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; 53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and [yet] did not keep it." [Acts 7:51-53] ​

So in what way were they "resisting the Holy Spirit"?
In what way does the Holy Spirit work that can be resisted?
Is there a working of the Holy Spirit that cannot be resisted?
How does Acts 7:51 harmonize and interlock with these equally true scriptures ...

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." [John 6:44]

26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. 30 "I and the Father are one." [John 10:26-30]

28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [Romans 8:28-30] ​

 

Variation on #1: "That word doesn't mean what you think it means."

We got another mind reader.

 

Dude, this is English not Greek. It is a simple matter to look up the meaning of a word ...

shall
verb
\ shəl, ˈshal \

past should\ shəd , ˈshu̇d \; present singular and plural shall

Definition of shall

auxiliary verb


1a —used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future: we shall have to be ready/we shall see
b —used to express simple futurity: when shall we expect you
2 —used to express determination: they shall not pass
3a —used to express a command or exhortation: you shall go
b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory: it shall be unlawful to carry firearms
4 archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can

may
auxiliary verb
\ ˈmā \
past might\ ˈmīt \; present singular and plural may
Definition of may

1a archaic : have the ability to
b : have permission to: you may go now —used nearly interchangeably with can
c —used to indicate possibility or probability: you may be right —sometimes used interchangeably with can —sometimes used where might would be expected
2 —used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction: may the best man win
3 —used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation: I laugh that I may not weep or contingency: she'll do her duty come what may or concession: he may be slow but he is thorough or choice: the angler may catch them with a dip net
4 : shall, must —used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation

Thus "SHALL" as used in the quote you referenced means MUST and not HAS THE ABILITY/PERMISSION TO ("MAY"). I made a simple statement of fact. Sometimes, it would appear, that word really doesn't mean what you think it does ... even in English.

Not a mind reader, just a reader.

The quote said ...

You claimed it meant ...

Your choice of "enables" in YOUR statement of what it "Sounds to [you] like it's saying" more closely matched the definition of "MAY" (presented above) than the definition of "SHALL" (the word that was actually used in the quote. Thus your statement of interpretation did, in fact, prove the very point that you were denying. The language was "wishy-washy".

... and before you challenge me on the definition of "enable":

enable
verb
en·able | \ i-ˈnā-bəl \
enabled; enabling\ i-ˈnā-b(ə-)liŋ \
Definition of enable
transitive verb

1a : to provide with the means or opportunity: training that enables people to earn a living
b : to make possible, practical, or easy: a deal that would enable passage of a new law
c : to cause to operate: software that enables the keyboard
2 : to give legal power, capacity, or sanction to: a law enabling admission of a state

 

Shall I look up the word?

Is the use of the word "shall" in that sentence an inevitable outcome? Or am I asking for you for your assent? To enable me?

Anyway you might want to look at definition 4b for "shall" in your post.

4 archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can

And consider the Five Points were written in 1610.

 

I see the word, "hath", in the first sentence of Article 1. I also see the phrase, "sinful race of men" rather than the word "people" or the words "men and women", so yes, I do see archaic words and phrases.

Is the english used in 1610, when the five points was written, considered archaic? I say it is.

 

Well, well, well. I'm seeing this phenomena described by Iconoclast whereby posts disappear. I quoted atpollard in my post (above) and now I see that his post has been removed. It's still preserved in my response to him, but his original post has been removed from the board. Hmmm...

 

I saw that in Article 1 after posting and I deleted the post (while you were typing your response) ... point acknowledged.

Accepting the Archaic meaning is the correct one, does a phrase that means either "must believe" or "can believe" with no indication which is the intended meaning not qualify as "wishy-washy". I say it means the Holy Ghost makes it so we MUST BELIEVE and you say the Holy Ghost "enables" us to believe and the text as written say we are both reading it correctly.

That's Political-speek ... "We believe in Jobs and the Future!" ... everyone gets to hear whatever they want to hear.

 

#6