Accountability, Part 2

Thank you for your frank and succinct replies!

I see that the Parable of the Prodigal Son is your authority for defining spiritual death as ‘separated or cut off from fellowship with me'; (i.e., God the Father).

In turn, the Prodigal Son’s response – the voluntary willingness to be reconciled -- is that which proves he is ‘now alive.’

Therefore, in your view the numerous biblical declarations that we were once ‘dead in sins’, does not carry the same profound meaning as that of Jesus calling Lazarus back to life from the dead.

Nor does it carry the same profound meaning as taught by Paul when he declared Christians have been raised from spiritual death by the same resurrection power that raised Christ. (Eph. 1:19-20)

In which case you agree with Point 1, as do all Arminians, including Arminius:

Sufficient grace is given all men by which they may respond either positively or negatively to the Gospel as they so will.

I quote Arminius:

“The efficacy of saving grace is not consistent with that omnipotent act
of God, by which he so inwardly acts in the heart and mind of man, that he
on whom that act is impressed cannot do otherwise than consent to God
who calls him; or, which is the same thing, grace is not an irresistible force…..
Those who are obedient to the vocation or call of God, freely yield
their assent to grace; yet they are previously excited, impelled, drawn and
assisted by grace; and in the very moment in which they actually assent,
they possess the capability of not assenting.” (Works of Arminius, Vol. 2; ‘ON THE VOCATION OF SINNERS TO COMMUNION WITH CHRIST, AND TO A PARTICIPATION OF HIS BENEFITS’)

 

Yes, I did not purposefully capitalize the ‘H’. I speak of man, not God. Thank you for pointing that out!

This is another tenet held by you, Arminians and Arminius.

Sufficient grace is given all men who hear the Word of God.

It is efficacious only in those who by their free will consent.

“But the same Scripture and the nature of both gifts [repentance and faith]
very clearly teach that this bestowment is by the mode of persuasion. This
is effected by the word of God. But persuasion is effected, externally by
the preaching of the word, internally by the operation, or rather the cooperation, of the Holy Spirit….”
“This internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit is two-fold. It is
sufficient and efficacious. In the former sense, since he, with whom it is
employed, is able to consent, believe, and be converted. In the latter,
because he, to whom it is applied, does consent and believe, and is
converted……. In the decree of reprobation, sufficient grace is not, with propriety,
said to be denied, since it is bestowed on many, who are reprobate, namely, on those,
who by the external preaching of the gospel, are called to faith and repentance,
but efficacious grace is denied to them, namely, that grace by which they not only can believe and be converted,
if they consent….”(Works, Vol. 3; ‘An Examination of the Treatise of William Perkins, Part 1; pgs. 297-298)

 

Sorry for the confusion. My statement concerns the final willful cause of man’s salvation: Is it of man or of God?

I agree it is conditional on believing in Christ, the provisional Lamb of God.

However, we believe Scripture is clear regarding the gift of faith as coming from God to man, not man to God.

Those who were saved by gazing upon the serpent as well as those Jews and Egyptians who placed the blood of the lamb upon their doorposts were saved by faith….whose origin was divine.

Man is saved ‘provided’ he exercises faith in God’s provision.

Man is commanded to ‘repent and believe.’

Such is man’s duty publicly proclaimed in the Gospel.

Those who exercise faith are saved. The contrary is true of unbelievers.

But Scripture reveals that when a man comes to faith it is due to God working behind the scenes, in secret, effectually, having mercy upon whom He will have mercy. (Phil 2:13; Romans 9:16,18)

Contrary to biblical truth, you, Arminians and Arminius believe it is man who has the power of free will to decide for himself whether or not he will place faith in God’s provision.

“……faith is, in such a sense, of the mere will of God, that it does not use an omnipotent and irresistible influence in producing faith in men,
but a mild suasion and one adapted to incline the will of man, according to the mode of the human
will: therefore the whole cause of the faith of one, and the unbelief of
another, is the will of God [i.e., sufficient grace], and the free choice of man.” (Works of Arminius, Vol 3; ‘An Examination, Part 2’, pg. 436)

Thus, it is man's will which makes the difference.

It is the causitive reason why one man is saved and another is lost.

So all Arminians teach, preach and believe.

 

In studying the link I found the following:

“New Testament theologian Ben Witherington remarks that apart from the word election (eklektos) occasionally being used to apply to the king in the Old Testament, election in the Old Testament is predominately applied corporately to a people, not to individuals.”

However, Paul contradicts this theory when elaborating ‘they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.’

In other words, within the corporate body of Israel were both reprobate and elect INDIVIDUALS.

The selection as to who were Elect and who were reprobate was God’s sole decision, based on His inscrutable will and purpose.

Amazingly, Arminius also believed in corporate election:

“They [i.e., his accusers] know that I use the word ‘Election’ in two senses.
(i.) For the decree by which God resolves to justify believers and to
condemn unbelievers, and which is called by the Apostle, ‘the purpose
of God according to election.’
(ii.) And for the decree by which He resolves to elect these or those
nations and men with the design of communicating to them the means
of faith, but to pass by other nations and men.”(Works of Arminius, Vol. 1, ‘The Apology or Defense;’ Article 28).

In conclusion, Skandelon holds to all the essential Arminian tenets which were viewed as unbiblical in the days of Arminius and continue as such to this present day.

 

In studying the 3 volumes of Arminius' Works, I was stunned at his relentlessly confused theology. The entire thrust of his writings was an attempt to 'explain himself' to his fellow Christian pastors and theologians who had grave misgivings as to his orthodoxy.

Arminius' arguments were designed to utilize all the right theological 'buzz words' for the purpose of sounding orthodox, but in reality, he forever twisted the meaning and intent of Scripture to suit his unorthodox theology.

One thing is certain.

Four hundred plus years ago men of God easily saw through his smokescreen of piety.

They saw the same errors which we see today.

They exposed them with rigorous examination via the Word of God, as we do today.

By God's grace, hearts and minds will be turned to the truth through our efforts and prayers.