The Confusion of Arminianism

Yelsew · May 8, 2003

Hosea 4:6 My people perish for want of knowledge.
Since you yourself have rejected knowledge,
so I shall reject you from my priesthood;
since you have forgotten the teaching of your God,
I in my turn shall forget your children.

Man living in this world does not have knowledge of God save for the written Word of God. Hense, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God"

KenH · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Man living in this world does not have knowledge of God save for the written Word of God.

Not true, Yelsew.

Romans 1:19-21(NASB)
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Frogman · May 8, 2003

What if Arminius were here to defend himself in this debate forum?

Arminians:

1. We are all born with the attribute of free will, because the fall of Adam was not so thorough as to have completely removed free will from our nature.

Arminius:

1. "In this state [of the inherited sin natufe from Adam], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it [free will] is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost."

Arminians:

2. Man is not totally depraved (born unable to do any good, unable to have saving knowledge of God, unable to have saving faith in God, unable to receive or respond to the Gospel).

Arminius:

2. "The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. [...] This is true, not only when, from the truth of the law which has in some measure been inscribed on the mind, it is preparing to form conclusions by the understanding; but likewise when, by simple apprehension, it would receive the truth of the gospel externally offered to it. For the human mind judges that to be "foolishness" which is the most excellent "wisdom" of God. (1 Cor. i, 18, 24.)"

Arminians:

3. Man is not spiritually dead in his sin by default.

Arminius:

3. "To these let the consideration of the whole of the life of man who is placed under sin, be added, of which the Scriptures exhibit to us the most luminous descriptions; and it will be evident, that nothing can be spoken more truly concerning man in this state, than that he is altogether dead in sin. (Rom. iii, 10-19.)"

Arminians:

4. Faith is not a gift, except in the sense that it is an innate, God-given ability from creation.

Arminius:

4. "I never said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying on God’s grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on matters of this description in a manner thus desperate and confused. I simply affirm, that this enunciation is false, "faith is not the pure gift of God;" that this is likewise false, if taken according to the rigor of the words, "faith depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of free will..."

Arminians:

5. We have the ability to choose of our own free will to believe or not believe in the Gospel.

Arminius:

5. "...and that this is also false when thus enunciated, "If a man will, he can believe or not believe.""

Just thought it would be interesting to see how arminius would answer modern arminians.

Bro. Dallas

William C · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by Frogman:
but since many are well grounded in the works based religion, there is no need of reading what a 'theologian' such as Arminius wrote, he spoke of common human nature and tried to reconcile that nature to the Divine nature of God. What is inconsistent is the method he employed was to adhere to the doctrine of total depravity, yet winding up making man's will free. Obviously a man who was confused.

You may see it that way, but just by your statement here I can obviously see that you are the one who is confused about his teachings. You are not accurately following his arguments if you think he was teaching your view of Total Depravity. The freedom of man is most definately fallen in sin. We don't deny that. And IF left to ourselves without God's grace we would remain dead and enslaved. We don't deny that. But God doesn't leave us alone. He sent Christ, the apostles, the Scripture by the Holy Spirit guidance and power. These are sufficient to overcome our depravity. There is not a need to create a secondary working of the Spirit by which he secretly, inwardly and irresistable calls a select few. That makes the other working of God, which is clearly taught in scripture, to seem trivial at best.

Ray Berrian · May 8, 2003

Brother Dallas,

When I said that the Roman Catholic church has moved away from their predestinarian--Five Point theological stance, I did not mean your shopping list of other errors. These errors came along with the various Pontiffs who made their own ex cathedras.

I ONLY meant that they have softened their views and presentation in the Christian world, who knows, perhaps because they honestly reevaluated their Augustinian background. After awhile people have more tools to work with and adjust their views because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We have more translations and Greek scholars who inform us of the rock-bottom truth coming from the Word of God. I heard a Roman Catholic priest say a few Sundays ago that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Thank God that the Spirit of God is not limited to only Protestant Churches. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that much of their doctrine comes wrongly out of human, church tradition rather than solely from the Old and New Testaments.

Some Christians adjust their theology as the Spirit of God instructs them to make the changes. We all have to be opened to the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit.

KenH · May 9, 2003

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
perhaps because they honestly reevaluated their Augustinian background. After awhile people have more tools to work with and adjust their views because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So by this do you mean to say that you do not believe Augustine was indwelt by the Holy Spirit and guided in his study of God's Word by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and therefore you don't believe that Augustine was a Christian, saved by the blood of Jesus?

Frogman · May 9, 2003

yeah, brother Ray,

They will speak of the blood of Christ, but they will require members to rely on works and such things to obtain that blessing. I deny this.

Bro. Dallas

Ray Berrian · May 9, 2003

Brother Dallas,

Roman Catholics and Wesleyan Arminians both require right living for their believers otherwise they are told they will not maintain the grace that Christ has given them. They are right in demanding holiness of heart but wrong to sit in judgment as to when a believer 'falls from grace.' They are in error but many in both churches are truly Christian people who love the Lord.

Ray Berrian · May 9, 2003

Ken H,

I don't like to sit in judgment of other people especially not knowing a lot about them. Augustine was wrong to mix human philosophy coming from Plato and Aristotle with his views of the Christian faith. It was at this point that he picked up through his research much of the deterministic Greek philosophy of those times along with views that came to portray God as being ruthless in His alleged retribution on the non-elect. The uncaring god of the Greeks became the unconcerned God of Christianity. We are told in the Word to ignore the philosophies of men. [Colossians 2:8] Augustine failed in this way. I don't know if Augustine will bypass the Great White Throne Judgment. Let's hope that he will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ which would mean that he will be saved and evaluated for his life and theology by Jesus.

Frogman · May 9, 2003

http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius34.htm

http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius29.htm

http://www.ccel.org/a/arminius/works1/htm/iv.xxiv.htm

Dallas,

How would you like it if someone did that to your writings on this board? Pick out a passage here and there drawing their own conclusions while leaving out the parts of your writings that explains how you come up with your conclusions.

Its not Arminius who is confusing, its your post that is confusing. I don't agree with everything Arminus ever wrote, after all he was once a Calvinists, but I just read his article and it is much clearer than trying to wade through your cutting a pasting of certain parts while drawing various false conclusions.

I suggest that if anyone wants a clearer picture of Arminius' actual arguments that they read the article in its entirity. (BTW, thanks for at least giving the link to the whole article, most wouldn't have done that)

Are you reading the links?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Frogman:
but since many are well grounded in the works based religion, there is no need of reading what a 'theologian' such as Arminius wrote, he spoke of common human nature and tried to reconcile that nature to the Divine nature of God. What is inconsistent is the method he employed was to adhere to the doctrine of total depravity, yet winding up making man's will free. Obviously a man who was confused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may see it that way, but just by your statement here I can obviously see that you are the one who is confused about his teachings. You are not accurately following his arguments if you think he was teaching your view of Total Depravity. The freedom of man is most definately fallen in sin. We don't deny that. And IF left to ourselves without God's grace we would remain dead and enslaved. We don't deny that. But God doesn't leave us alone. He sent Christ, the apostles, the Scripture by the Holy Spirit guidance and power. These are sufficient to overcome our depravity. There is not a need to create a secondary working of the Spirit by which he secretly, inwardly and irresistable calls a select few. That makes the other working of God, which is clearly taught in scripture, to seem trivial at best.

Really are you reading the links?

Bro. Dallas Eaton

Frogman · May 9, 2003

Here is the complete article found at the end of the third link provided in my last post:

ARTICLE XXVII (VII.)
Faith is not the pure gift of God, but depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of Free Will; that, if a man will, he may believe or not believe.

I never said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying on God’s grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on matters of this description in a manner thus desperate and confused. I simply affirm, that this enunciation is false, "faith is not the pure gift of God;" that this is likewise false, if taken according to the rigor of the words, "faith depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of free will" and that this is also false when thus enunciated, "If a man will, he can believe or not believe." If they suppose, that I hold some opinions from which these assertions may by good consequence be deduced, why do they not quote my words? It is a species of injustice to attach to any person those consequences, which one may frame out of his words as if they were his sentiments. But the injustice is still more flagrant, if these conclusions cannot by good consequence be deduced from what he has said. Let my brethren, therefore, make the experiment, whether they can deduce such consectaries as these, from the things which I teach; but let the experiment be made in my company, and not by themselves in their own circle. For that sport will be vain, equally void of profit or of victory; as boys sometimes feel, when they play alone with dice for what already belongs to them.

For the proper explanation of this matter, a discussion on the concurrence and agreement of Divine grace and of free will, or of the human will, would be required; but because this would be a labour much too prolix, I shall not now make the attempt. To explain the matter I will employ a simile, which yet, I confess, is very dissimilar; but its dissimilitude is greatly in favour of my sentiments. A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propriety, that "the alms depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on the liberty of the Receiver," though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that "he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?" If these assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine grace are required! This is the question which it will be requisite to discuss, "what acts of Divine grace are required to produce faith in man?" If I omit any act which is necessary, or which concurs, [in the production of faith,] let it be demonstrated from the Scriptures, and I will add it to the rest.

It is not our wish to do the least injury to Divine grace, by taking from it any thing that belongs to it. But let my brethren take care, that they themselves neither inflict an injury on Divine justice, by attributing that to it which it refuses; nor on Divine grace, by transforming it into something else, which cannot be called GRACE. That I may in one word intimate what they must prove, such a transformation they effect when they represent "the sufficient and efficacious grace, which is necessary to salvation, to be irresistible," or as acting with such potency that it cannot be resisted by any free creature.

William C · May 9, 2003

Originally posted by Frogman:

Really are you reading the links?

Brother, I have the books. And yes, I have read the links too. Have you?

Try reading them again without trying to prove him wrong. Read it with objectivity. Try to understand what he is saying, instead of refuting what he is saying. Read it with the thought, "What if this guy is right?" And then see if it makes more sense to you.

Frogman · May 9, 2003

Try reading them again without trying to prove him wrong.

I am not trying to prove him wrong, just trying to show that he would not stand in fellowship with many of whom call themselves today followers of his teaching, as Scott Emerson has here in this thread and others pointed out.

I do think it is contradictory to say as Arminius does, that man has a totally depraved will, yet possesses a 'free-will'; but this is a representation of those who are seeking only an historical proof of thier views and not a Biblical understanding.

BTW, I can see no distinction between total depravity and 'total inability' perhaps you could enlighten me and others on the major distinctions...if they are to be found.

To use simple language and Biblical language, the first disciples were fisherman. In this capacity they once spent a night fishing with no 'fruit' to show for their labor. But on the next morning, when Christ directed them and empowered their efforts, then there was caught a draught of fish in the net that they were astonished.

It is the same in our own labor. Christ said, ...I must be about my father's business... we attempt to make this our labor. This is not ours, but is God's and was given to the Son while he was in this world. It is our business to proclaim the Gospel and leave to the Spirit to move upon the depraved heart of the hearer(s), thus in this way shall we see the produce of our labor and this by the power of the Spirit of Holiness and not the guise and enticment of men.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

{Yes, I have read these links, that is why I posted them}.

Frogman · May 9, 2003

Originally posted by Bro. Bill:

"What if this guy is right?"

Hey, here's a method for ya, why not read the Bible and ask the same question?

Bro. Dallas

Yelsew · May 9, 2003

BTW, I can see no distinction between total depravity and 'total inability' perhaps you could enlighten me and others on the major distinctions...if they are to be found.

Lets use common definitions. These are from Random House Websters Dictionary
"Depravity" is a condition or state of being.
"Ability" is a skill.
These terms are not interchangeable, they do not have the same meaning and they do not describe a similarity

depravity, n., pl. -ties.
1. the state of being depraved.
2. a depraved act or practice.

ability, n., pl. -ties.
1. power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.
2. competence in an activity or occupation because of one's skill, training, or other qualification: the ability to sing well.
3. abilities, talents; special skills or aptitudes: Composing music is beyond his abilities.
-Syn. 1. capability; proficiency, expertness, dexterity. 2. ABILITY, FACULTY, TALENT denote qualifications or powers. ABILITY is a general word for power, native or acquired, enabling one to do things well: a person of great ability; ability in mathematics.FACULTY denotes a natural ability for a particular kind of action: a faculty of saying what he means.TALENT is often used to mean a native ability or aptitude in a special field: a talent for music or art.

-ability,
a combination of -able and -ity, found on nouns corresponding to adjectives in -able: capability.

To say that one who is depraved possess no skills is wrong, because one who is depraved uses many skills to manifest his depravity.

Conversely, to say that one who has no abilitites, is depraved is equally wrong, because those born with defects are not born depraved, just lacking in some area of normalcy.

[ May 09, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

Frogman · May 9, 2003

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BTW, I can see no distinction between total depravity and 'total inability' perhaps you could enlighten me and others on the major distinctions...if they are to be found.

Lets use common definitions. These are from Random House Websters Dictionary
"Depravity" is a condition or state of being.
"Ability" is a skill.
These terms are not interchangeable, they do not have the same meaning and they do not describe a similarity

depravity, n., pl. -ties.
1. the state of being depraved.
2. a depraved act or practice.

Click to expand...

ability, n., pl. -ties.
1. power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.
2. competence in an activity or occupation because of one's skill, training, or other qualification: the ability to sing well.
3. abilities, talents; special skills or aptitudes: Composing music is beyond his abilities.
-Syn. 1. capability; proficiency, expertness, dexterity. 2. ABILITY, FACULTY, TALENT denote qualifications or powers. ABILITY is a general word for power, native or acquired, enabling one to do things well: a person of great ability; ability in mathematics.FACULTY denotes a natural ability for a particular kind of action: a faculty of saying what he means.TALENT is often used to mean a native ability or aptitude in a special field: a talent for music or art.

-ability,
a combination of -able and -ity, found on nouns corresponding to adjectives in -able: capability.

Click to expand...

</font>[/QUOTE]So...would 'total inability' mean the opposite???

If so...then using common definitions you just proved the point, if not, then your confusion is added to that of Arminius himself

Bro. Dallas

Yelsew · May 9, 2003

I have never in my sixty plus years observed even one human being that was afflicted with total inability. Every human regardless of condition, possesses at least one ability.

Likewise, I have never observed a single human being that is totally depraved. Every human being has at least one element of goodness.

Your insistance on extremes is "totally unbiblical"

Frogman · May 9, 2003

So, now you wish to deny heaven and hell? Are these two not opposing 'extremes'?

What of the extreme of glorifying man? Is that Biblical?

Bro. dallas

Yelsew · May 9, 2003

So...would 'total inability' mean the opposite???

I don't think we are speaking of Total anything. There is no human being that is totally able, therefore there can be no human being that is totally inable.

If you truly believe there is, then you short change God's ability to create that which is good! And He said that his creation is Good!

Do you think for one minute that Adam's sin came as a surprise to God? If yes, then why did God establish the Lamb of God, slain from the Foundation of the World? That is, the earliest stage of creation, or before. Why did God establish the atonement for the sins of the world before the creation of of the world?

God is no fool, He knew before he created man what was going to happen, there are no surprises for God.

Yelsew · May 9, 2003

Originally posted by Frogman:
So, now you wish to deny heaven and hell? Are these two not opposing 'extremes'?

What of the extreme of glorifying man? Is that Biblical?

Bro. dallas

The topic was not heaven and hell and their relationship!

The topic is man!

The Confusion of Arminianism

Yelsew

Guest

Well-Known Member

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

New Member

New Member

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

New Member

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Yelsew

Guest

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Yelsew

Guest

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Yelsew

Guest

Yelsew

Guest