Arminius drenched with contradictions

[npetreley]

First, thanks to rsr for posting a link to the writings of Arminius. I found them most enlightening, because it is much more clear to me now that Arminius was terribly confused in his thinking.

Here is an excerpt from those writings, where Arminius explains his understanding of what predestination means:

"IV. That to those whom, by his absolute will, God has fore-ordained to perdition, he has also decreed to deny that grace which is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and does not in reality confer it upon them; so that they are neither placed in a possible condition nor in any capacity of believing or of being saved."

Assuming this has been translated accurately, here's what I find astounding about the language. He says that "he has also decreed to deny [certain people] that grace which is necessary and sufficient for salvation".

It seems pretty unfair when you put it that way, doesn't it? The problem lies in two words: "deny" and "grace".

The only way one can possibly determine that it is "unfair" to deny some people grace is if one assumes that these people deserve the grace they are being denied. But it is by definition impossible to deserve grace. Grace is unmerited favor. Deserved grace is an oxymoron.

Here is another glaring error...

It is repugnant to the justice of God, not only in reference to that attribute denoting in God a love of righteousness and a hatred of iniquity, but also in reference to its being a perpetual and constant desire in him to render to every one that which is his due. (1.) It is at variance with the first of these ideas of justice in the following manner: Because it affirms, that God has absolutely willed to save certain individual men, and has decreed their salvation without having the least regard to righteousness or obedience

This was a jaw-dropper for me. In other places, Arminius seems to affirm faith and grace. Yet here, he says - in shockingly and abundantly clear language - that it is repugnant that God would choose anyone for salvation without having some qualifications of righteousness or obedience.

In short, Arminius gives lip service to grace, but neither understands that it is unmerited, nor does he approve of it being unmerited! To him, it would be unjust if one can get saved by any means other than righteousness and obedience! In that case, grace is not grace!

Unless it gets a lot better later on, I don't see how anyone actually takes Arminius seriously.

 

[Frogman]

I. God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, (whom he did not consider as being then created, much less as being fallen,) certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, (as others assert,) to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power.

Is this which I have placed in bold letters the words of Arminius or of those he is arguing against?

does it seem to be denying the foreknowledge of God?

Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

No one deserves grace. But if God were to make possible grace to some and not to all, at this point He would become an unjust God. One of His attributes, as you know, is His Divine justice. Therefore, the concept of 'Particular Election' flies in the face of God and makes Him to be a bias God in matters so great as eternal salvation.

It is interesting that God tell us to 'love our neighbor as ourselves' and that we should forgive seventy times seven times, but God can get away with only loving His elect souls. Get the point?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
No one deserves grace. But if God were to make possible grace to some and not to all, at this point He would become an unjust God.

This does not make sense. You are saying that if God does not give undeserved favor to anyone, He is just. But if He gives undeserved favor to one person, He would be unjust not to give it to everyone else. Sorry, Ray, but by giving it to one person, the rest don't magically "deserve" to get this "undeserved" favor. If the remainder of the people still don't deserve it, then God is not unjust for withholding it from them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
No one deserves grace. But if God were to make possible grace to some and not to all, at this point He would become an unjust God.

Once again, Ray, you are not making sense. I have received somethings in my life that I didn't deserve. Does that mean that the person I received them from was unjust because you did not receive them too? More importantly, does that mean that God was unjust because he blessed me with some things he did not bless you with? That is simply bad thinking.

You believe that everyone deserves grace and it is therefore unjust if they do not get it. The Bible teaches that no one deserves grace and whoever doesn't get it has no right to complain. It is your sense of justice that is messed up, not God's.

 

[Ray Berrian]

npetreley & Pastor Larry,

Your childen may or may not deserve a special treat of ice cream cones other than they were created by you. Give one the treat and pass by the other two and see if they think you are fair/just. Let me know what they say when you speak to them about this idea. I will be glad to hear your honest answer.

We studied rectoral justice, distributive justice and remunerative justice. On top of this God's justice is infinite and without a cintilla of favoritism.

The Rectoral justice of God recognizes God as being the moral ruler who ministers His moral law in the world, promising reward for obedience to Him and punishment for disobedience.

Distributive justice relates to the execution of His law in terms of both reward and punishment.
Remunerative justice which is a reflection of His love means that He ministers rewards to the obedient; on the negative side retributive justice means that He administers wrath by which He punishes the wicked.

Never in this world has God ministered regeneration to some and neglected this same possibility to everyone. His justice forbids it!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
npetreley & Pastor Larry,

Your childen may or may not deserve a special treat of ice cream cones other than they were created by you. Give one the treat and pass by the other two and see if they think you are fair/just. Let me know what they say when you speak to them about this idea. I will be glad to hear your honest answer.

My kids think it's "unfair" when they lose at a video game. Does that mean the game was unfair?

Honestly, Ray, I find the standard against which you measure God's justice to be bizarre beyond description.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
First, thanks to rsr for posting a link to the writings of Arminius. I found them most enlightening, because it is much more clear to me now that Arminius was terribly confused in his thinking.

Here is an excerpt from those writings, where Arminius explains his understanding of what predestination means:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"IV. That to those whom, by his absolute will, God has fore-ordained to perdition, he has also decreed to deny that grace which is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and does not in reality confer it upon them; so that they are neither placed in a possible condition nor in any capacity of believing or of being saved."

Assuming this has been translated accurately, </font>[/QUOTE]You assume inaccurately.

James is expounding upon the portions of the supralapsarian position in which he disagrees and why he disagrees with them.

Thanks for giving more evidence to my claims on the other post that Calvinists are ignorant of the Arminian position. You all can't even follow the indept arguments of that day. (but I won't pretend its always easy for me, I do have to wade through it as well, but I try to be a little more careful before I go posting misquotes. I suggest you do the same.)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
You assume inaccurately.

James is expounding upon the portions of the supralapsarian position in which he disagrees and why he disagrees with them.

Huh? Yes, I know he disagrees with this viewpoint. That was not in question. And the issue of translation was whether or not the word "deny" was appropriate. I assume you have his original work, which you have checked and determined that "deny" was inaccurate, after which you deemed it appropriate to say that I assumed inaccurately that it was translated properly.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Thanks for giving more evidence to my claims on the other post that Calvinists are ignorant...

Thanks for making it obvious that you fail to understand even the simplest of posts.

 

[Frogman]

Your childen may or may not deserve a special treat of ice cream cones other than they were created by you. Give one the treat and pass by the other two and see if they think you are fair/just. Let me know what they say when you speak to them about this idea. I will be glad to hear your honest answer.

when does the parent/child relationship begin Ray to our knowledge it begins at the moment we experience the new birth, in God's eternal knowledge the reality of this relationship is real, but not acted upon until we, having been moved by regeneration of the Holy Spirit experience a Godly sorrow for our sin and sinfulness and repent. Then God enters into a father/child relationship. Not before.

In another place our Lord asked Peter what was it to him if he willed for John to remain until he returned.

Uh-oh...God does have differing plans for his children; but John did not have to suffer to go where he would not as Peter did.

Consider the whole of Scripture when making an answer.

God Bless
Bro. dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
You assume inaccurately.

James is expounding upon the portions of the supralapsarian position in which he disagrees and why he disagrees with them.

Huh? Yes, I know he disagrees with this viewpoint. That was not in question. And the issue of translation was whether or not the word "deny" was appropriate. I assume you have his original work, which you have checked and determined that "deny" was inaccurate, after which you deemed it appropriate to say that I assumed inaccurately that it was translated properly. </font>[/QUOTE]Your not understanding me still. The phrase "decreed to deny grace" is the language chosen by the supralasariuns who don't try to gloss over the fact that their system teaches double predestination and therefore would say that God does "decree to deny grace." If you have problems with that wording take it up with Arminians opponents. BTW, Arminiaus never says he thinks that unfair of God he said, "they are neither placed in a possible condition nor in any capacity of believing or of being saved." Which is a charge that Double Predestinationists are ok with. They would say, "Your right God doesn't ever make it possible or give man the capasity." Some Calvinists, even ones on this board, deny that charge saying that it is possible but that man is just unwilling. Why do they go to the trouble of making that distinction? Because they recognize the scriptural support for man's capasity to believe and God's geniune desire for them to do so, but still seek to maintain a Calvinistic view of predestination.

Nick, I think you are more in the camp with the Supralapsarians so you are somewhat blind to these distinctions. But, I think someone like Larry or Russell55 as examples would be more careful separate themselves from them.

 

[Ray Berrian]

npetreley,

I am not trying to be harsh but "Particular Election" is totally opposite of the Lord God's moral standard of His Divine justice. He has implanted in our hearts as sinners and saints with some degree conscience and morality, at least until a sinner abuses his conscience.

Particular Election is off the scope. God cannot tell Christians to love each other and then turn around and autocratically damn, at will, the majority of His created beings. This is totally against His sense of moral integrity and contrary to His moral ways in dealing with people.

I also notice that you changed what I said about your children and the ice cream to another unrelated example. I am a father of three adult children. When they were children and even now as adults I still try to treat them equality. Believe it or not, I was created in 'the image of God.' Should we think in a lesser way about the Lord? I still believe God is Divine and remains and always will be a God of Divine justice/fairness.

I understand that you believe a different theology so my views seem to be wrong. Always keep in mind that He is a God of justice and all of Scripture will dovetail into His perfect plan for His creatures and will His moral universe.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
God cannot tell Christians to love each other and then turn around and autocratically damn, at will, the majority of His created beings.

Autocratically or not, since you are not a postmillennialist, you believe the majority will be in hell. What does it matter whether it was autocratic or not? Their fate is still the same.

Therefore, to use this against the Biblical teaching of Calvinism is specious on your part.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Your not understanding me still. The phrase "decreed to deny grace" is the language chosen by the supralasariuns.

And you know that, how? That is what Arminius claims, but he isn't quoting anything, he's paraphrasing and interpreting. The first section of the article starts this way:

1. The first opinion, which I reject, but which is espoused by those [Supralapsarians] who assume the very highest ground of this Predestination. ...

The opinion of those who take the highest ground on this point, as it is generally contained in their writings, is to this effect:

In other words, what follows is what Arminius believes is generally contained in their writings, and what he is about to describe is "in effect" what they are saying. Then, in the second section, Arminius introduces his points this way -- and be careful to note the heading, in bold:

2. MY SENTIMENTS ON THE PRECEDING SCHEME OF PREDESTINATION.

But, for my own part, to speak my sentiments ... I am of opinion, that this doctrine of theirs contains many things that are both false and impertinent ... I shall, therefore, propose to myself four principal heads, which are of the greatest importance in this doctrine ... They are the following: ...

"IV. That to those whom, by his absolute will, God has fore- ordained to perdition, he has also decreed to deny that grace which is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and does not in reality confer it upon them; so that they are neither placed in a possible condition nor in any capacity of believing or of being saved."

So what I quoted is from the pen of Arminius. They are his words; his interpretation of the point in question.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
If you have problems with that wording take it up with Arminians opponents.

Why would I do that, when the wording is from Arminius, according to how Arminius interprets the doctrine with which he disagrees? Or can you provide me with the exact quote by the Supralapsarians, and show that Arminius simply failed to give proper attribution?

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Nick, I think you are more in the camp with the Supralapsarians so you are somewhat blind to these distinctions.

I am getting the impression you simply need to go to camp and get away from this strenuous reading for a while.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Dallas,

We well understand that God has a plan for each of us as childen of God as He did with John and Peter.

We are simply trying to get some of you to realize that God is not partial, as you portray Him being. He died for all human beings on the Cross. [I Tim. 2:4 & 6]

As far as God only getting involved in our lives only after He regenerates us is an erring view. God goes before the sinner to preparing His life where that lost person can respond to His ministry on the life of the needy soul.

Also, I don't think you want to say that God does not manifest His governance over all human beings whether saved or lost. If it was not for Him no one would ever have a human birth into His world. His blessings fall on the just and the unjust. [Matt. 5:45] ' . . . for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.'

Balance my friend, balance.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I am not trying to be harsh but "Particular Election" is totally opposite of the Lord God's moral standard of His Divine justice.

Can you quote God on that?

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
God cannot tell Christians to love each other and then turn around and autocratically damn, at will, the majority of His created beings.

No, He cannot, because to do so would mean God would have to change history to match your view. The only way God can "damn, at will, the majority of His created beings" is if they are in some neutral state and would not be damned if God chose to do otherwise. God cannot "damn people at will" unless they wouldn't be damned if He didn't do it.

But that mythical "neutral state" only exists in your example -- it isn't how things are in reality. We do not all start out in neutral, after which God chooses to condemn some and bring the rest to heaven. We all start out condemned, and God has mercy on some.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken H,

It is true that the number of the elect is without doubt set.

We object to the view that God only loves and regenerates certain people because it smears the very reality of God and His ways in the lives of the lost ones. It should always be our goal to present God in truthful ways.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
It should always be our goal to present God in truthful ways.

I see. So you are calling me and all Calvinists liars, then?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
We object to the view that God only loves and regenerates certain people

So you are saying that salvation ultimately depends not upon God but upon people, then?

 

[Frogman]

Also, I don't think you want to say that God does not manifest His governance over all human beings whether saved or lost.

I don't believe I did say anything resembling this.

Bro. Dallas