IF Once Were Arminist, What verse(s) Forced You To calvinism?

[glfredrick]

Allright. Then I haven't misrepresented your position at all. You just don't like the logical implications of it, the most egregious of which is that the Cross saved no one. It merely levelled the playing field and provided a situation in which one may save himself by his own righteous act of belief.

Well said, and as observed, the ground of Skandelon's theology.

That IS the position of Arminian theology, which makes Christ a good example, but not capable of completing the act of salvation (which AGAIN, requires more than mere election to accomplish). Owen made that argument very well in DDDC. So far, no Arminian has effectively refuted Owen's exegesis on the subject. They don't "like" it, but they cannot refute it without leading into full-blown Pelagianism.

 

[glfredrick]

Again...in the Genesis text we see God actively cursing the ground and even certain elements of our lives--like Eve having pain in childbirth.

So, in that sense, God actively cursed the creation (hence all creation is groaning under the curse).

It would seem, though, that the spiritual destruction is a result of Adam's (and Eve's) becoming a rebel rather than remaining obedient. Their default position as rebels was passed on to all their progeny as was their guilt before God as well. This, though, was brought on themselves and is a natural consequence of their rebellion--as opposed to an active cursing that caused these consequences.

The Archangel

Would we not say that God offered a sinless life, with no curse and no death in exchange for perfect obedience, but at the time perfect obedience was set aside, the promised consequences would be enacted, i.e., condemnation and death? God did not have to actively declare Adam dead in sin and trespasses. He first made a law that Adam (who had active choice as a free man) chose to disobey. Consequences were forthcoming with no active choice needed by God. The choice of God was made before man fell. After that, choice was eliminated. The law is fulfilled, as it is also in the atonement of Christ, who satisfied (among other things) the requirements of the law.

 

[Aaron]

You seem to have no concept of provisional atonement...an atonement offered as provision for whosoever fulfills their part of the covenant relationship.

There it is again! The Cross PLUS some righteous act on the part of man.

So do you Aaron. You just believe that act is efficaciously produced.

Nope! We are begotten of God, and we are as active in that as in our first begetting.

So, again, by this reasoning you must believe that man is saved by grace, through a work, that is efficaciously produced by God. Is that what you believe Aaron, that man is saved by grace through an divinely produced work of man?

Only if that man is Jesus. And it's by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves. It is all of Christ. Christ is the Author, and He is the Finisher thereof.

I cannot boast of anything. Who can forget this shameful display from another thread (emphasis mine)?

I mentioned that I chose "life" when I finally came to Christ and was born of the Spirit.

. . . I chose Christ. I had other options. I could have said "no!", and rejected Him. I could have gone back the the Catholic cult, I could have chosen the "new age" gobbledegoop that lots of people where turning to. Lots of people come as close as I was at that moment, and they turned away.

You go ahead and boast of your righteousness. Despite your irrational and stubborn insistence to the contrary, your soteriology leaves only one reason that you are saved and another is not, and that is not the Cross. It is that you are either smarter, braver or love God more than the other.

We Calvinists will boast only in the Cross. It is the Power of God unto salvation.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!

 

[Aaron]

Well said, and as observed, the ground of Skandelon's theology.

That IS the position of Arminian theology, which makes Christ a good example, but not capable of completing the act of salvation (which AGAIN, requires more than mere election to accomplish). Owen made that argument very well in DDDC. So far, no Arminian has effectively refuted Owen's exegesis on the subject. They don't "like" it, but they cannot refute it without leading into full-blown Pelagianism.

Thank you. It a great compliment to have an argument of mine compared to one of Owen's!

 

[Van]

"You just don't like the logical implications of it, the most egregious of which is that the Cross saved no one. It merely leveled the playing field and provided a situation in which one may save himself by his own righteous act of belief."

Well said, and as observed, the ground of Skandelon's theology.

That IS the position of Arminian theology, which makes Christ a good example, but not capable of completing the act of salvation (which AGAIN, requires more than mere election to accomplish). Owen made that argument very well in DDDC. So far, no Arminian has effectively refuted Owen's exegesis on the subject. They don't "like" it, but they cannot refute it without leading into full-blown Pelagianism.

I think the statement of Glfredrick is accurate, no Arminian has refuted "Owen's argument, if it is the same as articulated by Aaron. But if restated as no "non-Calvinist" has refuted the argument, then the statement is false.

When Christ died on the cross, no one was automatically placed in Christ spiritually. To claim the elect were already spiritually in Christ, or that when Christ died the elect were automatically placed in Christ has no support in scripture. If "Owen" provided support for that fiction from the bible, please provide the link.

When is a person saved? When God puts them spiritually in Christ! Not before. Could anyone be put spiritually in Christ and undergo the circumcision of Christ before Christ became the propitiation for the whole world? Nope. See Hebrews 11:39-40.

Yes, there are problems with Arminianism, but just because Arminianism misses the mark in some areas, that would not cause a person to become a Calvinist, because Calvinism misses the mark even more, in my opinion.

Choice becomes non-choice
Remember no more becomes really remembered forever.
Faith before regeneration becomes regeneration (renamed quickened) before faith.
Things happen by chance becomes God predestines everything.
The whole world becomes the whole world of the elect Jews and Gentiles.
No word is safe from the revisionist Calvinists.

Oh and last one I read was, and I am certain this does not actually represent mainstream Calvinism as espoused by Pink, was God did not cause, via His curse, the consequence of Adam's fall affecting mankind. It just happened "naturally." You see, once you start playing fast and loose with scripture, there is no barrier to man-made doctrines supplanting scriptural truth.

 

[The Archangel]

Would we not say that God offered a sinless life, with no curse and no death in exchange for perfect obedience, but at the time perfect obedience was set aside, the promised consequences would be enacted, i.e., condemnation and death? God did not have to actively declare Adam dead in sin and trespasses. He first made a law that Adam (who had active choice as a free man) chose to disobey. Consequences were forthcoming with no active choice needed by God. The choice of God was made before man fell. After that, choice was eliminated. The law is fulfilled, as it is also in the atonement of Christ, who satisfied (among other things) the requirements of the law.

I think you are correct. I was not able to articulate the position as you have here.

Thank you!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

When Christ died on the cross, no one was automatically placed in Christ spiritually. To claim the elect were already spiritually in Christ, or that when Christ died the elect were automatically placed in Christ has no support in scripture. If "Owen" provided support for that fiction from the bible, please provide the link.

Ephesians 2:4-7 would stand firmly against you.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Reply to Jesusfan,

think that my "eyes being openned" was more to the fact that up until reading thru that book, had read John Calvin Institutes, and other cal books, that seemed to me to be what would now be called a "high cal position" some of them from the commentaries I read seemed to have a double predestination , God actively elects both to heaven/hell people...

Also, he seemed to be one of the few Baptist theologians/reformed theologians that I read that was a 4 point Cal, and he had faith preceding regeneration, most seemed to have it other way around!

Think that Milliard Erickson theology showed me that one COULD find in the bible evidence that God did predestined people to become saved, but did NOT actively condemn those with Christ....

he also seemed to be able to explain that one could be an evangelical Christian, and yet leave more "gray areas" in theology than some I had read, and seemed to be more charitable to those outside "cal/baptist" camp!

First I made a little mistake, the book I have is "Introducing" Christian Doctrine, which is a condensed version of the book you mentioned.

Now lets zero in on Erickson demonstrating "one could find" support for God predestining people to be saved. Erickson defines "predestination" as "God choice of individuals for eternal life or eternal death." So number one, that is a revisionist definition of the term, what is actually means is to determine beforehand something. So if God determines beforehand, does that mean before creation, or simply one nanosecond before He causes the predestined circumstance, whatever it may be. So Erickson, really is saying God determined before creation all people to be saved. Now lets see if Dr. Erickson provides support for that premise, which is of course Calvinism 101.

Lets walk through the presentation. First we start with a fundamental truth, well supported in scripture. (a) the whole human race is lost in sin, the consequence of Adam's sin. Next we get (b) "this condition (lost in sin) includes moral corruption. This too is true and well supported in scripture. And then we get (c) this includes "moral disability." This term means man is unable (before salvation) to do good and unable to "convert" themselves. These facets of "moral disability are true too.

The next view presented is God's sovereignty, which is defined as God doing as He pleases, and that He is not restrained to act in a way we might consider "fair" as illustrated by the labors in the vineyard getting paid the same for differing amounts of work. If God is generous to another, such as giving mercy on the death bed, we should not think that generosity was ill deserved, for God is Sovereign.

These two truths under-gird God's individual election of some people for salvation. So far so good, three sound biblical truths.

 

[Van]

Reply to Archangel

Ephesians 2:4-7 would stand firmly against you.

The Archangel

This is a typical Calvinist response. Mention a passage and make a vague assertion with no specifics. Anyone can make that sort of generalized comment, such as the whole of scripture stands firmly against Calvinism.
Such comments only add heat and not light.

Now if anyone looked up the passage you would see it stands firmly for the view of being saved equates with being spiritually in Christ. God made us alive together with Christ. Sounds like He put us spiritually in Christ so we were together with Christ and in being united with Christ we are made alive, regenerated so to speak, born again, etc, etc.

 

[DHK]

I cannot boast of anything. Who can forget this shameful display from another thread (emphasis mine)?You go ahead and boast of your righteousness. Despite your irrational and stubborn insistence to the contrary, your soteriology leaves only one reason that you are saved and another is not, and that is not the Cross. It is that you are either smarter, braver or love God more than the other.

We Calvinists will boast only in the Cross. It is the Power of God unto salvation.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!

Aaron, I saw you quote another poster who said this:

I mentioned that I chose "life" when I finally came to Christ and was born of the Spirit.

. . . I chose Christ. I had other options. I could have said "no!", and rejected Him. I could have gone back the the Catholic cult, I could have chosen the "new age" gobbledegoop that lots of people where turning to. Lots of people come as close as I was at that moment, and they turned away.

That leads me to believe that YOU never put your trust in Christ, and YOU cannot give a testimony of receiving Christ as YOUR savior because YOU can't use the first person singular. If you can't use the first person singular "I" how is it that you can be saved by faith?

Not questioning your salvation; just asking how is it possible to be saved without using the first person singular and not saying I trusted Christ???

I can give you a dozen verses where Paul uses the first person singular. That would put your position as not only unbiblical but anti-biblical, would it not?

 

[Rippon]

That leads me to believe that YOU never put your trust in Christ...

Not questioning your salvation...

Come on now.Of course you are questioning his salvation. --Just as you have questioned mine in the past.

You are caught in your contradiction.

 

[Van]

Reply to Jesusfan, continued.

Next Dr. Erickson leaves scripture and starts making assertions based on man-made inventions. He says, "one biblical evidence that God has selected certain individuals for salvation is found in Ephesians 1:4-5. He [the Father]chose us in Him [Jesus Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will. Here we see the usual inference of "He chose us [individually] in Him, but He chose us [corporately] in Him, works better since we had not been created yet. So this passage does provide evidence of election and that the election resulted in individuals being placed "in Him."

Next Dr. Erickson uses a verse out of context, saying Jesus choosing His disciples for the purpose of spreading the gospel, equates with God choosing individuals for salvation. He chose them "out of the world" and Calvinists say they were chosen for salvation before they were in the world when Jesus chose His disciples. So no support from this passage.

And then John 6:37 is referenced which teaches that those the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son, and the Son will not cast them out. This certainly does support individual election for salvation.

Then the usual argument is made that since God chose Jacob and Esau before they had done anything good or bad, that implies God chose individuals for salvation unconditionally. But just a few paragraphs before Dr. Erickson pointed out that God does not interact with people in the same way, the deal given to Jacob was not the deal given to Esau, and neither of those deals necessarily indicates the manner in which God chooses individuals for salvation. So yet again, no actual support for the premise is found in the referenced passage.

But then, in the nick of time, he references Romans 9:16 which says, in effect, salvation does not depend on man's will or exertion but on God's mercy.

Once Dr. Erickson moves past these truths, he simply states as fact without reference to any supporting passages the "inability of humans in their natural state to respond in faith to the opportunity of salvation. In other words the same old fiction without any support whatsoever. He proved "moral disability" we cannot save ourselves, but did not even attempt to prove, in the chapter on predestination, total spiritual inability, he just states it as fact.

Next he engages in the same faulty thinking concerning spiritual blindness. He suggests because of the fall, we have moral disability, which is true, and then suggests this results in spiritual blindness. But the verse cited is 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, which refers not the fall and its consequence, but to Satan, the god of this world, as having blinded people. Thus the onset of the blindness is while we are alive and in the world. So a logical absurdity as evidence provides no evidence.

In summary, I found nothing in Dr. Erickson's book, that provided evidence from scripture for Calvinism 101, I just found the usual citations with the usual flaws.

 

[Skandelon]

That IS the position of Arminian theology, which makes Christ a good example, but not capable of completing the act of salvation (which AGAIN, requires more than mere election to accomplish). Owen made that argument very well in DDDC. So far, no Arminian has effectively refuted Owen's exegesis on the subject. They don't "like" it, but they cannot refute it without leading into full-blown Pelagianism.

That is tantamount to claims made against the logical necessity of Calvinism leading to full blow hyperism and hard determinism. Regardless of where human reason logically takes any particular viewpoint (i.e. if God is going to save the elect irresistibly it doesn't matter if I evangelize), the opponent of ones view must deal with their actual claims (i.e. Calvinists believe in the need for evangelism), not what is logically deduced from human reason. When you fail to extend us the same courteous of not drawing extreme logical conclusions based on the claims of the Calvinistic system then you open yourself up to similar attacks. If that is what you want, then let's start a discussion on God's authoring of evil, the need for evangelism and issues of divine culpability regarding men's choices.

 

[Skandelon]

The choice of God was made before man fell.

One, this wouldn't matter for those who deny even the possibility of contra-causal free will (sorry, I don't remember if you are one of the Calvinists here who does or doesn't).

Two, in your system, since God foreknew the choice of Adam, his decision to make all descendants born totally depraved was as active as it would have been had he made that determination following Adam's fall.

After that, choice was eliminated.

True, a choice is eliminated until an appeal or offer of reconciliation is made, then a choice once again exists and must be made.

 

[Skandelon]

Nope! We are begotten of God, and we are as active in that as in our first begetting.

Aaron, we are talking about SALVATION, not just REGENERATION. Even Calvinists affirm the need for men to have faith in Christ for their salvation, whether that is effecatiously produced through the work of regeneration or not, is it still necessary, thus by your own argument, you too must affirm that men are saved by grace through works. Congratulations.

Also, I believe fredrick should be standing in disagreement with you on this point because I don't believe he is one who equates regeneration with the 'effectual call.' (I may be remembering that wrong)

And it's by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves. It is all of Christ. Christ is the Author, and He is the Finisher thereof.

Faith is referred to as in possession of man "Abraham's faith" etc. Even if it is efficaciously brought through the work of regeneration it is still YOU BELIEVING, Aaron. It may be Christ work to irresistibly cause your faith, but that doesn't negate the need for faith for salvation.

I cannot boast of anything. Who can forget this shameful display from another thread (emphasis mine)?You go ahead and boast of your righteousness.

I did not write that and I don't appreciate you making it appear as if I did.

Despite your irrational and stubborn insistence to the contrary, your soteriology leaves only one reason that you are saved and another is not

Yes, and those two options have been clearly laid out. In your system God lifts some men to give them what is needed to be saved thus giving God the glory for their being saved. In our system God lifts all men to give them what is needed to be saved, but some resist his grace and perish because of it, yet for those saved God still get the glory for lifting them and giving them what they needed. You system leaves God culpable for man's rejection of his appeal to be reconciled, while in our system the culpability is fully man's because God has done all that is needed for all men to be without excuse.

and that is not the Cross. It is that you are either smarter, braver or love God more than the other.

Humble yourself and you will be exalted, Aaron. If you think "giving up" and admitting you can't do it on you own anymore is boast worthy, go right ahead, but you have no biblical support for such a claim. "Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD."

 

[Winman]

Yes, we've all seen commercials or a movie where a man is driving his family around in circles for hours, obviously lost. His wife repeatedly asks him to stop and ask someone for directions, but the man is proud and refuses to do so, insisting he can find the way.

Finally, the man gives up and admits he is totally lost, stops at a gas station and asks for help.

And this is how salvation is, we must humble ourselves and admit we cannot save ourselves, and call on Jesus to do for us what we are not able to do ourselves.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, we've all seen commercials or a movie where a man is driving his family around in circles for hours, obviously lost. His wife repeatedly asks him to stop and ask someone for directions, but the man is proud and refuses to do so, insisting he can find the way.

Finally, the man gives up and admits he is totally lost, stops at a gas station and asks for help.

And this is how salvation is, we must humble ourselves and admit we cannot save ourselves, and call on Jesus to do for us what we are not able to do ourselves.

And we all know that when that guy gets home he brags and boasts to all his friends about having to get help, right? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

Come on now.Of course you are questioning his salvation. --Just as you have questioned mine in the past.

You are caught in your contradiction.

I resent your accusation.
This is an honest question.

How can any person, not just Aaron, but any person, say: "I am saved," without using the first person singular. Please answer. This is not an accusation of anyone's salvation. If you would like to take a stab at the same question be my guest.

 

[Aaron]

In his signature manner of rhetorical contortions, Skandelon is now attempting to say that Calvinists and Arminians really believe the same thing. Give it up will you? Your theology has been weighed in the balances and has been found wanting. You must add something to the Cross to be saved. The Jews said it was circumcision, you say it's a nod.

 

[Aaron]

I resent your accusation.
This is an honest question.

How can any person, not just Aaron, but any person, say: "I am saved," without using the first person singular. Please answer. This is not an accusation of anyone's salvation. If you would like to take a stab at the same question be my guest.

If I say Jesus saved me, or that I was born in such and such a city and such and such a time, I am merely testifying of those things that happened to me.

The boast I quoted was saying something altogether different. He was saying he did it when others didn't.

For the record, I never thought you were questioning my salvation, though I wouldn't care if you did. It is a small thing for me to be judged of others. But there are some of those {snip - no personal attacks} on this board who seek the praise of men above the . . . . oh nevermind!