Flaws of Arminianism

"credit some of those faiths as righteousness" I have never heard anyone put it like that.

This is what I'm getting at. That is called a semi-Pelagian position. It is common among American Baptists and the old revivalist preachers like Charles Finney. No, I don't agree with it but it is very popular. What confuses me is your next points:

They seem to contradict the point you made above. Especially point 2. If you can't come unless you're drawn by the Father then all the spiritual ability you need was not given to you as a human. This would be an Arminian or Calvinist position. Now you can go on a rant about how you're being misrepresented or you can begin a civil discussion. But I'm willing to bet what it will be. Let's see.

 

I'm sorry Van it just sounds like you are contradicting yourself here too.

 

You see corporate election in these passages because your own bias obliges you to see corporate election.

But there is not corporate election found in scriptures, but individual election that builds the corporate.

Human hope so faith is as frail as my health.

What faith is given by God is everlasting assured substance with evidence of realized hope, and such cannot be found as innate in humans.

"Our" faith is that which God gives personally to each believer according to the purpose in which He has appointed. It is "our" faith not from innate source of fallen human, but because we are endowed, empowered, authorized to become His adopted child (John 1).

You did. You deny your own presentation, again?

Then You deny your own words, again.

Why don't you merely present a recantation of your view errors rather then trying to hedge your thinking in a cloud of northern lights?

In multiple threads you have brought up this topic of one must express their own faith and that when God's examination of such effort meets His approval He will then credit that effort and place that one into Christ.

Did you change your mind and view?


There is always hope that you did!

 

Sorry I missed this - there was rapid posting going on. I posted it and am quoting it so you can see I'm not denying what I post. When you say that all the spiritual ability we need is given to us as humans I take that to mean that you believe there is nothing wrong with us in our own actual condition. If that's not what you mean then just say so, don't go on a rant. If your spiritual condition is not lacking any ability you need to come to Christ then I was assuming you meant that we are sinners only in that we have sinned - but are not spiritually impaired beyond that. So I said "you mean we are only sinners by deeds". In other words, even though we have sinned, which we all agree on, I was asking if you believed that in a spiritual sense we are neutral towards God, not alienated or with a bent towards hostility towards God in our natural state. Sorry, but in light of the thread you started I don't think those questions are in any way misrepresenting you or your posts.

 

Simply there exists conflicts of interpertations. Interpretations and the explicit teachings of the text need not be at odds. Yet the interperations are where the different views come apart.

A key verse which can be interperted to show sanctification of the Holy Spirit precedes regeneration:
Hebrews 10:29, ". . . Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

Both Calvinism and Arminianism place sanctification after regeneration. Here Arminianism wins.

 

Do you realize that Hebrews 10 is discussing the New Covenant? I'm unsure how that applies to Arminians and Calvinists.

 

No such text.
Hebrew 9:26, ". . . For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . ."

 

Realize inspite of what should be simple explanations, because such explanations involves interperations, some will not understand such arguments no matter what.

 

If one is going to quote from Hebrews 6-10, one must understand the argument the author is making about the need for a new High Priest and mediation of a New Covenant.
If a person dismisses covenant theology, that person will likely miss the point the author is making.

 

Spot on.

 

[Revelation 13:8 KJV] 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

From not before.

 

Does the Second Person of the Trinity change?
(As long as we are going to split hairs … and was He more perfect before or after the change?)

 

Oh yes of course, as the second Person He does change, but never as God, since God never changes.