Accountability

[InTheLight]

Arminians, as well as Arminius, believe it is man's 'free will decision' which holds supreme authority in either accepting or rejecting the 'grace which is offered.'

If man's will determines to accept the grace which is offered, then grace is his for the asking.

If, however, man's will determines to reject the grace which is offered, then God respects and honors man's decision, never violating the will's freedom to reject.

Contrary to the belief system of ALL Arminians and Arminius,...

You erect strawmen so frequently you don't even realize you are doing it!

Amazing!

 

[agedman]

Wow...where to start...

Let's take a little time to learn some facts:

Quote:

I ascribe to grace THE COMMENCEMENT, CONTINUANCE AND CONSUMATION OF ALL GOOD. To such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will or do anything good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing, this exciting, this following and this co-operative grace. From this statement it will clearly appear that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it was reported of me, too much to man’s free will: for the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force”? That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations that may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, - whether it be irresistible or not: With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. -Jacobus Arminius
​

vs...

Skan,

When Arminius made this statement, it seems he was including folks already regenerate - saved ("...that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive..."). Therefore, he seems to place the ability of the believer to resist evil as a grace given by God.

I am not certain that it a Scriptural view.

The "fiery darts" are not resisted by grace, but by the very Word ("holding forth the word of God..."). Without the Word of God, the darts penetrate all the shields and damage the believer in every area (intellectually, physically, testimony and witness).

The insertion of "grace" is also in the last part as conditioned upon resisting the Holy Spirit or not.

This is accurate - the believer has the Holy Spirit.

However, it is inaccurate toward them that have no Holy Spirit, nor have the innate capacity to inquire after the Holy Spirit.

There is no "good" in the unredeemed, and what supposed "good" is always tainted with the seeds of decay and lusts. All the Holy Spirit is given to present to the unredeemed is conviction, judgment, and righteousness.

Is not Arminius, therefore, not placing the condition of the lost in the same light and in the same grace as those of the redeemed?

If he is, is that truly Scriptural?

 

[InTheLight]

Oh, and if you REALLY wanted a citation there is a thing called 'google' where you can pretty much search for any quote and every citation you could ever want about that quote will come up. Hope that helps. :thumbsup:

Citation to your quote may be found in this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bk...IAYyogegK&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Yeshua1]

You erect strawmen so frequently you don't even realize you are doing it!

Amazing!

Well, some holding to Arminian theology have indeed made 'free will" their sacreed cow, in that the Lord helpless to save any siiner, unless that person permit and allows it!

 

[Protestant]

For those who may not pick up on this intent:

"Straw Man" is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated. -link

Your position has been repeated on this forum innumerable times.

Because of your verbosity I choose to distill its contents into the following easily discernable points:

1. Man is sin sick, but not to point of spiritual death and total inability to do that which is pleasing to God unto salvation.

2. The Holy Spirit enables every man by the power of the Gospel to believe if He so wills.

3. The ultimate decision pertaining to man's salvation or condemnation lies not with the eternal will of God contingent on nothing in man, having done no good or evil, but rather lies in the good or bad use of man's will.

4. Election, therefore, is determined by man's foreseen faith.

Please correct me where I have strayed from your POV.
Please keep your reply concise, if possible.
Thank you!

 

[Protestant]

Wrong.
Wrong again.

Your debating skills are nothing less than 'shock and awe.'

I suggest you spend more time studying the writings of your Mentor, Father Kreeft and his Jesuit compatriots.

 

[Protestant]

Citation to your quote may be found in this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bk...IAYyogegK&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Please cite the page number so I may examine the context and credulity of the quote.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Your debating skills are nothing less than 'shock and awe.'

I wasn't "debating" you. You are not interested in debating anyone; you do not engage in "debate" (at least on this forum).
However, I do wonder at your analogy inasmuch as "Shock and Awe" was quite effective.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your position has been repeated on this forum innumerable times.

Because of your verbosity I choose to distill its contents into the following easily discernable points:

1. Man is sin sick, but not to point of spiritual death and total inability to do that which is pleasing to God unto salvation.

2. The Holy Spirit enables every man by the power of the Gospel to believe if He so wills.

3. The ultimate decision pertaining to man's salvation or condemnation lies not with the eternal will of God contingent on nothing in man, having done no good or evil, but rather lies in the good or bad use of man's will.

4. Election, therefore, is determined by man's foreseen faith.

Please correct me where I have strayed from your POV.
Please keep your reply concise, if possible.
Thank you!

that is indded the majority postion held by the non calls here on the BB!

 

[InTheLight]

Please cite the page number so I may examine the context and credulity of the quote.

Click on the Google Book link in my post and put a keyword from the except in the search box, like 'continuance' or 'Consummation' and the quote will pop up. There are no page numbers listed. Be warned that because of copyright issues Google will only allow a certain number of page views in this book (which appears to be 5 views).

 

[Skandelon]

1. Man is sin sick, but not to point of spiritual death and total inability to do that which is pleasing to God unto salvation.

I affirm the concept of 'spiritual death' as interpreted in the prodigal son story where the father concludes, "He was dead but now is alive," meaning he was separated or cut off from fellowship with me, but now has come home to be reconciled.

I also affirm that man cannot save himself and needs God's gracious provision. God must initiate the salvation process, thus in that since man is totally unable to save himself. I do reject the idea that man remains totally unable to respond even after God takes the gracious initiate to send the gospel appeal.

2. The Holy Spirit enables every man by the power of the Gospel to believe if He so wills.

"He" is capitalized so I'm not sure if that is meant to be in reference to the man or God? If 'he' refers to the man, I think I would agree with this.

3. The ultimate decision pertaining to man's salvation or condemnation lies not with the eternal will of God contingent on nothing in man, having done no good or evil, but rather lies in the good or bad use of man's will.

Very poorly worded and confusing at best. God's decision to save whosoever believes is the ultimate decision pertaining to man's salvation. God's gracious atoning work throughout history has ALWAYS been provisional. He provided the snake to be lifted in the desert but the man had to look to it in faith to be healed. God provided the passover promise, but the man had to place the blood over their door post to be saved from the angel of death. He has always worked through provisional atonement, thus it is incumbent on you to prove He is working differently since precedence in on our side.

4. Election, therefore, is determined by man's foreseen faith.

I've regularly denied the foresight faith view. I affirm what is typically known as the 'corporate view of election.'

A decent summary can be read HERE>>>>>>>