Featured False Religion of Arminianism 2

I would like to hear people's views on something. Say a guy is just going along, he goes to church or gets into a discussion and suddenly, he feels deeply convicted and realizes his lost condition and realizes he can't undo things he's done so he decides to venture his eternal soul on Jesus and trust in Him to be his savior. Later, someone asks him "What did you do?" He says, "Well, I heard about Jesus, realized I was a sinner, threw myself on His mercy, and believed". He thinks he believed. Is he saved or not.

 

If Arminianism is a false religion, how is Calvinism not a false religion? Teaching "unconditional" election. Let alone denying the general redemption (in such passages as Romans 5:8).

 

In Romans 5,
I see that Paul is telling the believers at Rome that God commended His love towards them and that when they were still sinners, Christ died for them.

If I may ask, is there something about that passage, which starts out with:

" Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3 And not only [so], but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 and patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."

...that doesn't strike you as speaking and applying only to those who have believed on Jesus Christ?

My friend, read the chapter and track the pronouns;
Are the things being said intended for all men, or is Romans 5 speaking to and about those who have believed?


In other words, is Paul telling God's elect ( Romans 8:1-39 ), those who were justified by faith ( Romans 5:1 ) that when they were yet sinners, Christ died for them,
or is he telling them that when all of mankind were yet sinners, Christ died for all of mankind?.

 

What about “prevenient grace” that makes SALVATION 100% of God … including empowering men with the freedom to choose when they have heard the Gospel?

(I think it fails Occam’s Razor and has some scriptural challenges, but it is neither Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism, so it avoids your “man saves self” criticisms.)

I think Classic Arminianism deserves a chance to be heard in the marketplace of ideas without being “taught” by its critics as a strawman. State their best case and let’s look hard at what the scripture says. I ask no more for Calvinism than a fair hearing. At least reject what it actually teaches.

 

All salvation is “Calvinist” from God’s View and most salvations sure look Arminian from OUR point of view. (I had the rare gift of being saved while wanting nothing to do with God, so I have no “Arminian” POV. - Like Saul, God made me an offer that I couldn’t refuse.).

 

[Romans 5:8 ESV] “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Who is “we” and “us”?
What about that says “everyone without exception”?

 

". . . while we were yet sinners . . . " even as the "elect" were at that time indistinguishable from the non-elect. The particular redemption at the supposed exclusion is an explicitly false belief. The election is God's and not our doing. Ephesians 2:1, ". . . And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: . . ."
The definitive evidence against only limited atonement.

 

I agree. And I think Calvinism best describes what happened. I have a problem with Calvinists who deny an actual interaction between man and God at all. They won't address the concept that receiving a gift does not infer any merit. They also cannot address how someone lets anyone else know you have been saved because you might say "I believed", and commit heresy. They can't address what, if anything, you can legitimately say to someone as a form of witness because after all, you just somehow end up saved. This stuff has nothing to do with any Calvinist I have ever heard who actually preached a sermon. Even if you say you just preach Christ and him crucified what then - anything anyone does in response is a work. I want the hyper-Calvinists to answer how this works. On a theological level, I want someone of this group to explain how, when you take particular redemption to the point of saying that at Christs death you are saved, you can reconcile that to the fact that R.C. Sproul and John Owen said that you are NOT justified until you come to Christ by faith.

 

I agree, and that is what makes it unconditional...
It is God's doing.

 

So are you saying that they are not saved?

 

How many times have we looked at the 5 points of the Remonstrants? I know I have shared them at least once.

 

Sinners.

 

Wrong. God is conditional.

 

Amen.
The Lord is conditional in that He has mercy and compassion on someone ( Romans 9:14-18 ) or He does not...
He is the condition.

According to the Bible, there are no conditions that we as sinners can possibly meet, that will ever result in us gaining His eternal favor.
That is the difference between Him regarding our works, and Him basing His work of salvation and gift of eternal life upon His grace ( Romans 11:5-6 ).

The only works of a Man that He ever regarded, were that of His Son on behalf of God's elect...
His people chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:3-14 ).
He saved His people from their sins ( Matthew 1:21 ) and reconciled them to Him by His death ( Romans 5:10 ).

That is how I understand the situation, and that is what I've come to believe from my studies in His word over many years now.


May God bless you.

 

Prevenient grace I don't think you can find in scripture at least explicitly taught. The problem I think is how much grace is needed for someone to be saved. Is there a level of grace that you can give someone that is not enough to overcome their will and leaves them with a choice to reject the gospel, and yet, as classical Arminianism teaches is necessary for salvation. If it is enough to get them saved then it is "effectual" calling.

If they were trying to come up with an explanation that leaves the door of invitation truly open for anyone who hears the gospel to come in then it was unnecessary because Calvinism properly understood does not leave the door shut on anyone who comes. You don't need to come up with a different theology to have evangelism.

 

I don't see God's word telling us that His elect ( the vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory ) were ever indistinguishable, to Him, from those that the Lord has specifically made as vessels of wrath ( Romans 9:22-24 ).
Again ( and if I haven't been clear ), back in Romans 5, I clearly see Paul telling the elect at Rome ( the foreknown and predestinated in Romans 8 ) that when they were yet sinners, Christ died for them.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that Paul is telling them that the Lord Jesus died for all men's sins.

I disagree.

To me the statements in Romans and several other places tell me who the "world" is in 1 John 2:2, for example. The "world" of God's elect out of every tongue, tribe and nation ( Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8, Romans 9:24 ).

That is how I understand those passages when I consider all that God's word tells me about how and why the Lord Jesus came to give Himself a ransom for many.
He was stricken for the sins of Isaiah's spiritual people ( Isaiah 53:8 )...
The elect.

Again, I can see that we disagree,
and from here on out I will try to refrain from replying to you on this subject in order to keep the peace between us.


Good afternoon to you.

 

How many times have anti-Calvinists explained what Calvinists believe and shown that we are unbiblical?

It doesn’t really count if you (anyone) are presenting and explaining the beliefs of your opponent. Legitimate discussion requires Calvinists stating and defending Calvinism and Arminians stating and defending Arminianism. Anything else carries the taint of being a ‘parody’.