Is anything really accomplished by this forum or not?

While I am Arminian in view (as I understand the term), I certainly think that the "drowning man" analogy may not be the right one. My understanding is that Paul seems to be saying that we are truly dead in our sin. In such a case, the man should be "dead" or "unconscious". This is a "soft" opinion however, - I need to study some more.

And I would take issue with those Arminians who assert that "free will acceptance" of the gift of salvation is not a work or does not confer "merit" on the recipient. I think that such acceptance is indeed a "meritorious work". Yet I still think that it is such a tiny contribution to the salvation process, that one can still agree with Paul that we are (substantively) saved by grace, not works.

 

There is no difference? So is it just dumb luck?

No, that is your view of my view. I don't use the drowning man analogy, as it is not biblical. So stop trying to turn the analogy on me, when I don't even accept the analogy in the first place. You're the one that holds to the analogy, and you have yet to explain the difference between the one who takes the rope and the one who doesn't. So far, we are left with just dumb luck.

 

Andre, I do not see how receiving a gift can have any meritous attribute. If I gave you a present, and you received it, what contribution did you put in to earn the gift? To "work" means to earn. How do you "earn" a free gift? Moving your arms? Speaking the words "thank you"? Smiling?

If even a tiny contribution lead to salvation, it would be a work as you say, and would go 100% against the Bible.

 

There is no difference? So is it just dumb luck?

No, that is your view of my view. I don't use the drowning man analogy, as it is not biblical. So stop trying to turn the analogy on me, when I don't even accept the analogy in the first place. You're the one that holds to the analogy, and you have yet to explain the difference between the one who takes the rope and the one who doesn't. So far, we are left with just dumb luck. </font>[/QUOTE]No dumb luck involved, just HAVING FAITH like the Bible tells us. You don't believe that?!? Such a simple thing that you twist into a confusing mess!

 

Andre,

I appreciate your honesty and earnestness in grappling with these issues. I hope that one day you will come to understand that we saved wholly by grace and not just substantively by grace. Keep grappling with the issues, friend.

 

King James, when I first met my wife, I was deeply in love with her. I could not force myself to not love her. Now you are right to say that love is an act as well, I love my wife through my sacrifice to her. But that moment but I did not decide that she would capture my heart, that my hands would shake when I approached her. Love the act was the fruit of love the noun.

So you believe that a dead man such as Lazarus could have resisted the power of the Word of the almighty God who created the heavens and earth out of nothing. Calvinists view the God's power as infinite and eternal. I always feel so small when I read Jesus' shout to Lazarus (dead 4 days) "Lazarus, come forth" and could weep, when in the next verse he says, "loose him and let him go"(Jn 11:43-44).

 

As Scott J. has testified, no Arminian has answered this question directly.

I appreciate Andre's answer more, since he is at least being honest with the issue.

 

Hello Webdog:

This is a good question, but I do believe an analysis of the notion of receiving a gift really does work out to being a "work". When someone offers a gift, you have the possibility to refuse it, right? If so, there must be some decision-making process, some act of mental arbitration that leads you to actually commit to one of the two possibilities - accept the gift or reject it. Based on the common-sense construal of the word "work", I do think that a mental process of deciding to accept a gift clearly is a "work". Remember that in deciding to accept, the recipient is undertaking a process of mental deliberation "on his own", as an agent unto himself. This seems to fit the concept of "work" to me. If the concept of "acceptance" is left unanalyzed, the accompanying act of mental deliberation is left unexposed and it may appear that no work is involved. But I believe otherwise.

 

Andre,

I appreciate your honesty and earnestness in grappling with these issues. I hope that one day you will come to understand that we saved wholly by grace and not just substantively by grace. Keep grappling with the issues, friend. </font>[/QUOTE]Receiving a gift is part of the gift giving process, no work involved.
A. Giver has gift to give
B. Giver offers gift to givee
C. Recipient either accepts or reject gift
D. Gift is not earned either way
It is done wholly by grace from the gift giver. If we earned it...that would be a different story.

 

As Scott J. has testified, no Arminian has answered this question directly.

I appreciate Andre's answer more, since he is at least being honest with the issue. </font>[/QUOTE]How did I not answer your question honestly? ALL men have the ability to have faith. Faith comes by hearing. All men CAN hear. Those who have faith are saved, those who don't are not. What's not honest and biblical about this?

 

Hello Webdog:

This is a good question, but I do believe an analysis of the notion of receiving a gift really does work out to being a "work". When someone offers a gift, you have the possibility to refuse it, right? If so, there must be some decision-making process, some act of mental arbitration that leads you to actually commit to one of the two possibilities - accept the gift or reject it. Based on the common-sense construal of the word "work", I do think that a mental process of deciding to accept a gift clearly is a "work". Remember that in deciding to accept, the recipient is undertaking a process of mental deliberation "on his own", as an agent unto himself. This seems to fit the concept of "work" to me. If the concept of "acceptance" is left unanalyzed, the accompanying act of mental deliberation is left unexposed and it may appear that no work is involved. But I believe otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]...then this could also be said about having faith and believing, as these take mental capability also. The Bible is clear we are not saved by works, so using the God given mental capabilities He created us with in having faith (receiving the free gift of God) cannot be a work as it would contradict the Bible. This would even apply with the calvinist belief that faith in itself is a gift. If we take this at face value, we would have to accept or reject faith, which according to your reasoning, would mean we worked for faith. If we decided to exercise the faith, then, that we were given, it would still be a work.

 

And the one who rejects it must be dumber, less astute, less thankful, less wiser, less something, or else he would have accepted the gift too, since we all know that God gives everyone an absolutely equal chance at making it to heaven.

 

Hello Webdog:

Interestingly enough, I think we both come to the same conclusion but for very different reasons. To me, it is inescapable that the very mental process of deciding to accept or reject a gift involves evaluations of the future consequences of choosing to accept or to reject. Since we would probably agree that there is a "right" decision to make here - namely to accept the gift of salvation, it would certainly seem that we would have to conclude that the person who chooses to accept salvation has acted more wisely, more competently, than the one who turns down the gift.

I have trouble seeing how this does not mean that the "acceptor" has "performed better" than the "rejector". Why did Einstein get a Nobel Prize? Because his mental deliberations accomplished something desirable and we rewarded this "work" on his part. In the same way, if "Fred" undertakes deliberations to "choose" salvation, isn't he equally to credited with doing a "work"?

 

And the one who rejects it must be dumber, less astute, less thankful, less wiser, less something, or else he would have accepted the gift too, since we all know that God gives everyone an absolutely equal chance at making it to heaven. </font>[/QUOTE]...or they just DO NOT WANT it for reasons only that person knows, not us! They might put think something better will come along, or there's a catch to receiving the gift. Not everything is as absolute as you make it...accept = smart, reject = dumb. The person that rejects it might think they made the smart choice!

 

Back to the more general topic of "Why have the debate if no one changes sides" --


Where logic fails ad hominem prevails.

This is common for all discussion threads where the argument runs weak.

It does not mean that the side doing all the shouting is wrong - maybe they have just not been diggin deep enough to find assurance and comfort in the "actual" facts because they simply don't "have enough" yet.

But if you go to the other denominations board you can see some sand flying out of the sandbox on almost every topic.

Should we close them all down?

But the OP does have this point that I was trying to raise on a related topic to "Sola scriptura".

If Christians that CLAIM to be Bible based can not "discover their error" even when someone points it out to them (And "obviously" both the Arminian and Calvinist views can not be correct so we KNOW this is going on here in triplicate) -- then why not just punt and go with "tradition" but our brains on the shelf along with our Bibles and believe whatever we are told?

As the OP points out - people generally don't change sides. The Jews for the most part did not accept Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Andre, have you ever thought that the person who we believe is not making the wiser decision, believes in his mind and heart that he is? Is what we feel is the right decision enough to make the decision "wiser" and thus a work? That would mean the person who accepts worked the same as the person who rejected, and neither performed better rather the same, they just came to different conclusions even though neither is deserving. Salvation is like this. We do not deserve it; we can't work for it. We either accept it or reject it, not work involved.

 

Oh, is that all it is - that they just came to different conclusions? Meanwhile, one concluder gets to spend eternity in heaven, while the other concluder spends eternity in hell. Wouldn't you say that the unbeliever made an unwise decision?

 

I think I can explain the apparent problem you see in my position. Let's consider your claim that "the Bible is clear we are not saved by works". I would make the same claim - I would use the same words maybe, but I would mean something slightly different. My understanding of the relevant Bible texts, and the Bible as a whole, is that we can be true to the statement "we are not saved by works" and yet toss in a teeny-tiny work - the act of accepting the gift.

How can I say such a thing, you might wonder. Well, I do not think Paul attempted to write in the same manner that a lawyer or engineer might write - with an assiduous effort to ensure complete and total precision. So when Paul writes "we are saved by grace" and "lest no one should boast", I think he is claiming that we are substantively saved by grace, not that the process is completely and totally devoid of any contribution at all from the recipient. I may say more to "defend" this position (which I suspect will be viewed rather dimly by almost all on this board, whether A or C).

To be fair, though, I think you want it both ways - you want to claim a strict "I calls 'em as I sees 'em" interpretation of the Bible that involves a "technically 100 % pure and total salvation by grace" position and yet you also argue that acceptance is not a work. I still think the case that acceptance is indeed a work is rather strong.

 

James, I will, then, respectfully disagree as I am sure you have already given this quite some thought and have kept your theology. Let us discuss this further as two Christian gentlemen.

I do agree that men have decided not obey God's command all the time. I do it everyday. Anytime I sin disobey God's commandments. However Calvinists see salvation as a creation, not a commandment. He creates a new spirit in us and gives us a heart of flesh. We become a new man. 2Co 5:17 (ESV): "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Is there anything God cannot create? Children of Abraham from stones (Mat 3:9)? Can a creation resist being created? (Rom 9:18-21)