Arminianism Deconstructed

[AresMan]

In summary, Arminius formulated his doctrine to address his understanding of the flawed doctrine associated with John Calvin. He is on target in that he recognized something was amiss, but by framing his response based on acceptance of some of the underlying false premises of Calvin, his solution, like fruit from a corrupt tree, is unpalatable.

The biblical position is summarized as follows:

1. God chose the Word before creation to be the Lamb of God, and therefore anyone spiritually placed into Christ shares in His election before the foundation of the world. By logical necessity, when God chose His Redeemer before creation, He also chose corporately those His Redeemer would redeem. God’s plan for salvation was thus formulated before creation, and therefore anyone chosen and spiritually placed in Christ is chosen according to God’s foreknowledge of His salvation program, (1 Peter 1:2). Hence, He chose us in Him [corporately] before the foundation of the world, (Ephesians 1:4).

2. Christ died for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:6), becoming the propitiation (means of salvation) for the whole world (1 John 2:2), but only those whose faith in Christ God credits as righteousness (Romans 4:5) are then spiritually placed in Christ by God (1 Corinthians 1:30), and receive the reconciliation provided by Christ’s sacrifice (Romans 5:10-11). Thus we are saved by grace through faith and not by the will or actions of men. Ephesians 2:8-9.

3. Our individual election occurs when God chooses us to be a member of His family, after we are physically alive and have lived without mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10. He chooses those who are rich in faith and love God (James 2:5), who believe in Christ (John 3:16). We are chosen by God placing us into Christ (the sanctification by the Spirit) 2 Thessalonians 2:13, after He credits our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5. Our faith in Christ provides our access to God’s saving grace, Romans 5:2.​

Yeah, because we all know the truth must lie somewhere between deism and Arminianism (such as Open Theism). We just cannot have a Creator with sovereignty over His own creation. No! There are moral standards that that transcend the Creator Himself that the creature can use to judge the Creator for being unjust. He must, of necessity, give His creatures a mysteriously tautological "libertarian free will." He, then, of necessity, must not be able to know exhaustively what these creatures would do; otherwise, they would not be free; otherwise, they would not be morally responsible; otherwise, He would be unjust.
:tonofbricks:

 

[Van]

Reply to Aresman,

Yeah, because we all know the truth must lie somewhere between deism and Arminianism (such as Open Theism). We just cannot have a Creator with sovereignty over His own creation. No! There are moral standards that that transcend the Creator Himself that the creature can use to judge the Creator for being unjust. He must, of necessity, give His creatures a mysteriously tautological "libertarian free will." He, then, of necessity, must not be able to know exhaustively what these creatures would do; otherwise, they would not be free; otherwise, they would not be morally responsible; otherwise, He would be unjust.

First we have a Creator with sovereignty over His creation, God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Some rewrite the definition of sovereignty as code for exhaustive determinism, but that is not what the word actually means.

Nothing transcends God, He is All Powerful and does as He pleases. God has attributes such as He is just and the justifier of the unjust. This is revealed truth. So rather than judging the Creator, when men invent unjust behavior and attribute it to God, they are demeaning God.

God did not have to give mankind the ability to make autonomous choices, He chose to do it and indicated He did it and therefore to deny He did it demeans God. God sets before us the choice of life or death, not life only to some, and death only to others which is the Calvinist rewrite of God's inspired Word.

Next, God is able to know exhaustively what anyone will choose to do, such as Jesus telling Peter that one day Peter would stretch out his hands and go where he did not want to go, and in this way telling Peter how he would die.

Calvinists say out of one side of their mouth, God predestines everything, but they say it in code, i.e. God is sovereign, and then say out of the other side, God is not the author of sin. But that premise is a logical impossibility. If God predestined our sins, He is the author of our sin.

But rather than address the issue, they misrepresent their opponents position or disparage them. Why, because their doctrines are false and cannot be defended biblically.

 

[Van]

The T of the TULIP is false doctrine, fallen men can understand the milk of the gospel, but not spiritual meat which requires being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3.

The U of the TULIP is false doctrine, God chooses those rich in faith, those who are heirs to the promise God made to those who love Him, James 2:5.

The L of the TULIP is false doctrine, Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind. He died as a ransom for all. 1 John 2:2

The I of the TULIP is false doctrine, if applied to the call of the gospel, but those whose faith He credits as righteousness are put spiritually in Christ, 1 Cor. 1:30 and are kept for their inheritance by the power of God who protects their faith forever, 1 Peter 1:3-5.

Romans 9:16 is an interesting verse, first it says men can be willing, proving the T is unbiblical, and then it say God has mercy on whom He chooses, proving His selection based on faith is not based on merit.

 

[Don]

Van, not really seeing anything to debate with you about. Your last couple of posts dealt with calvinism; going back to your thread title, let's talk about where arminianism is wrong.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

The T of the TULIP is false doctrine, fallen men can understand the milk of the gospel, but not spiritual meat which requires being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3.

The U of the TULIP is false doctrine, God chooses those rich in faith, those who are heirs to the promise God made to those who love Him, James 2:5.

The L of the TULIP is false doctrine, Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind. He died as a ransom for all. 1 John 2:2

The I of the TULIP is false doctrine, if applied to the call of the gospel, but those whose faith He credits as righteousness are put spiritually in Christ, 1 Cor. 1:30 and are kept for their inheritance by the power of God who protects their faith forever, 1 Peter 1:3-5.

Romans 9:16 is an interesting verse, first it says men can be willing, proving the T is unbiblical, and then it say God has mercy on whom He chooses, proving His selection based on faith is not based on merit.

Van

Are we supposed to look at every verse in the Bible individually? Or in context with the verses around them?

 

[Van]

Van

Are we supposed to look at every verse in the Bible individually? Or in context with the verses around them?

Hi Bobby, I expect your question was rhetorical, of course we look at how words are used in context in every passage they appear in to arrive at the most probable word meaning for the passage we are considering.

One of the arguments often used by Calvinists is what I call fairy dust, they suggest a verse does not mean what it says because of "context" but never present how the context supposed alters the meaning.

My position is supported by the entire bible, but sometimes my understanding of a passage or verse will be very different from the meaning assigned by Calvinism. But when I explain the difference, I like to think my view is consistent with the immediate context and with every other passage that impinges upon the topic.

 

[Van]

Hi Don,

Van, not really seeing anything to debate with you about. Your last couple of posts dealt with Calvinism; going back to your thread title, let's talk about where Arminianism is wrong.

I did not think we were debating, I was attempting to explain my position to you because you indicated interest in understanding my views.

Here is where we were:

I didn't make myself clear; I wasn't trying to say that James 2:5 was the only place the subject was identified. I was trying to say that contextually the passage is talking about a different subject. For example, is 1 Cor 13 talking about or making the case for speaking in tongues? No; it's talking about having love. Yet you'll find pentecostals who use verse 1 as evidence that there is a tongue of angels, ignoring the rest of the chapter and thus, ignoring the context.

The issue is the timing of election, Arminianism claims God conditionally elected foreseen individuals for salvation before creation. I say God conditionally elects existing individuals for salvation during their lifetime, after they have lived without mercy, and His election is based on Him crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Hi Bobby, I expect your question was rhetorical, of course we look at how words are used in context in every passage they appear in to arrive at the most probable word meaning for the passage we are considering.

One of the arguments often used by Calvinists is what I call fairy dust, they suggest a verse does not mean what it says because of "context" but never present how the context supposed alters the meaning.

My position is supported by the entire bible, but sometimes my understanding of a passage or verse will be very different from the meaning assigned by Calvinism. But when I explain the difference, I like to think my view is consistent with the immediate context and with every other passage that impinges upon the topic.

No, I wasn't being rhetorical. I was just looking for when you think would be a time when a verse's only meaning come from the one specific verse it is in, and then when the meaning comes from the surrounding passages it is in.

That's all. I appreciate your response.

 

[Van]

Yes Bobby, case in point, Ephesians 1:4. Viewed in isolation, it seems to say individuals were elected for salvation before the foundation of the world, but when viewed with the other verses addressing election for salvation, an alternate understanding, He chose us in Him [corporately but not individually] before the foundation of the world.

Rather than take an understanding of one verse, and then nullify the others that do not fit, I believe the correct understanding will fit with all scripture, contextually considered.

 

[DaChaser1]

Yes Bobby, case in point, Ephesians 1:4. Viewed in isolation, it seems to say individuals were elected for salvation before the foundation of the world, but when viewed with the other verses addressing election for salvation, an alternate understanding, He chose us in Him [corporately but not individually] before the foundation of the world.

Rather than take an understanding of one verse, and then nullify the others that do not fit, I believe the correct understanding will fit with all scripture, contextually considered.

here we go again!

MANY here have shown you that per botht he contex of pauline theology, within the book of Ephesians, and per greek grameer/syntax, that the Apostle is indeed describing that God has chosen us on individual basis, that He preappointed those whom would receive jesus and get saved!

And no, that NOT calvinistic reading into texts there going on!

 

[Don]

I did not think we were debating, I was attempting to explain my position to you because you indicated interest in understanding my views.

The issue is the timing of election, Arminianism claims God conditionally elected foreseen individuals for salvation before creation. I say God conditionally elects existing individuals for salvation during their lifetime, after they have lived without mercy, and His election is based on Him crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness.

"Debate" may be too strong a word; but it was the one that came to mind as I wrote the previous post.

I'm not sure that you're that far off from arminianism. What you haven't made clear is how foreknowledge fits into what you've said here. Back on page 1, you said:

I did not mention your view of foreknowledge when presenting my view, nor did I suggest God does not have biblical foreknowledge.

So if God has foreknowledge of those that will individually be elected, how does that negate the arminian position? Or does biblical foreknowledge extend only to the corporate view?

 

[DaChaser1]

"Debate" may be too strong a word; but it was the one that came to mind as I wrote the previous post.

I'm not sure that you're that far off from arminianism. What you haven't made clear is how foreknowledge fits into what you've said here. Back on page 1, you said:

So if God has foreknowledge of those that will individually be elected, how does that negate the arminian position? Or does biblical foreknowledge extend only to the corporate view?

Goes back to the very basis/nature of the election of God!

Does he elect after we place our personal faith in jesus, faith causes election OR

God eelcts us first, that causes/results in faith placed towards /in Christ?

 

[Amy.G]

Goes back to the very basis/nature of the election of God!

Does he elect after we place our personal faith in jesus, faith causes election OR

God eelcts us first, that causes/results in faith placed towards /in Christ?

I think God elects on His own basis that He has chosen not to share with us.

 

[Van]

Hi Don, rather than change the subject to an attribute of God, lets stick with what scripture actually says about election.

Here are some questions: Does Ephesians 1:4 say whether the election before the foundation of the world was individual or corporate? My answer is no, either view is possible when you look at that verse in isolation.

Does James 2:5 say God chooses those poor in the eyes of the world, rich in faith and heirs to the promise to those who love God? If it does, and I believe it does, then individual election must occur during our lifetime. Do you agree.

The Arminian view is negated not with speculation but with specific scripture. Scripture says we are chosen individually during our lifetime.

 

[Don]

Hi Don, rather than change the subject to an attribute of God, lets stick with what scripture actually says about election.

Here are some questions: Does Ephesians 1:4 say whether the election before the foundation of the world was individual or corporate? My answer is no, either view is possible when you look at that verse in isolation.

Does James 2:5 say God chooses those poor in the eyes of the world, rich in faith and heirs to the promise to those who love God? If it does, and I believe it does, then individual election must occur during our lifetime. Do you agree.

The Arminian view is negated not with speculation but with specific scripture. Scripture says we are chosen individually during our lifetime.

Your final statement indicates that you disagree with arminianism on the subject of individuals choosing to believe in God, and thus being saved; is that correct?

 

[Van]

Yes Don, the Arminian view has God setting salvation before men, and when men accept it they put themselves into Christ. A synergistic view. Unbiblical, 1 Corinthians 1:30 says God puts us in Christ, we do not do it for it does not depend upon the man that wills, Romans 9:16.

But Don, please answer my questions, just two, from post number 34.

 

[Van]

Faith does not cause election and faith is not the result of election for salvation. Faith provides our access to the grace of salvation, Romans 5:2. We are saved by grace through faith. Like a door into a room, we go through the door to enter the room. God credits our faith as righteousness before we enter the kingdom of Christ, thus our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Many are called, few are chosen.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Where does this line of thought fall in?

God created man with free will. God knows what man is going to choose. Man either chooses to accept or reject God on his own free will. Once he accepts that, he is one of the elect.


So God didn't predistine or pre-ordain, but because God is all knowing, he knows who will and won't accept him before they are created.

 

[Don]

Yes Don, the Arminian view has God setting salvation before men, and when men accept it they put themselves into Christ. A synergistic view. Unbiblical, 1 Corinthians 1:30 says God puts us in Christ, we do not do it for it does not depend upon the man that wills, Romans 9:16.

But Don, please answer my questions, just two, from post number 34.

Before I answer those two questions, I need to ask you to clarify something for me: Does 1 Cor 13:1 justify you and I speaking in the tongue of angels? Why or why not?

(I do not intend to rabbit-trail this thread into a discussion on tongues; this will be the last time I say anything about the subject in this thread. And I'm not avoiding your questions. Believe it or not, how you answer this is germane to the discussion at hand, because it will help me understand something about you...not actually your position on tongues, but something else.)

 

[Van]

Reply to Bobby

Where does this line of thought fall in?

God created man with free will. God knows what man is going to choose. Man either chooses to accept or reject God on his own free will. Once he accepts that, he is one of the elect.


So God didn't predestine or pre-ordain, but because God is all knowing, he knows who will and won't accept him before they are created.

This line of thought does not fall into the mix, except to say our choice to accept or reject the gospel was not predestined and our choice to seek God and trust in Christ was not predestined. Christ would not lay down His life for the whole world if some among the world were predestined to Hades and Gehenna. When we hear the gospel and receive it, i.e. we commit to Christ alone as our savior and trust fully in Him and not in our works of righteousness, God knows our heart. If in His Sovereign judgment, we "believe from the heart" then He will credit our faith as righteousness and spiritually put us into Christ, and this action of spiritual transfer is performed by the Holy Spirit, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Thus our individual election for salvation does not occur before the foundation of the world, but from the beginning or from the foundation of the world.

My view, Bobby, is based on scripture and not on the speculation of men.