Please Biblically Show Why The 5 Points Of Arminianism Are Correct?

If you say labels need to be correctly applied, please start doing so. By your comments above you are not even close. I know of no non cal here that believes man can just come to God on their own whenever they feel like it. Perhaps you can tell us who

 

You have been corrected on this enough. The fact you still fail to recognize the Gospel as God's grace is ludicrous

 

Bro, get your "then's" and "than's" lined out.

 

I didn't say that... because that is not semi-pelagianism. Go back and read how I defined that system and you will see how it fits what most non-cals fit.

 

[Semi-Pelagianism]
While not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation,
Semi-Pelagianism maintains that the first steps
towards the Christian life are ordinarily taken by the
human will and that Grace supervened only later.

From monergism.com

evidently Tim doesnt know this or wishes to redefine the very term which is not surprising considering he also states calvinists can only believe in pre faith regeneration.

 

monergism.com does not have a monopoly on all classification definitions

and dude, what is your deal?

Question... have you read Geisler's chosen but free?

 

You should have given a full quotation as well. Later, Hendryx said, "While it is clear that Arminian Theology and Semi-Pelagianism have a different view of grace; (Arminianism believes God must initiate with grace and Semi-pelagianism believes man must initiate to receive grace)." This makes the implication that SPs that grace is something you recieve through the ability to choose and accept Jesus in faith. Grace is merely opportunity to be saved by Jesus in SPism. So.... fail for webdog

 

Again...not even close. Semi P teaches man makes the first move to God THEN He gives grace. There is not one non cal here including me who believes that! The very ability to believe has been instilled by God, not to mention Him gracing us with creation, His law written on our hearts, the desire to live forever and having been placed in the perfect location and place in time to seek Him and perhaps find Him although He is not far from any of us (Acts 17:26, 27). Giving man the Gospel is the ultimate act of grace...LEADING to mans response, so as you can see you are not even close in your assesment! We don't initiate anything...God does.

 

AMEN!!!! :applause::thumbsup::applause::thumbsup:

 

The semi–Pelagian controversy began with the concerns of both despair and carnal laxness among the monks at Adrumetum in North Africa brought about by Augustine’s doctrine of predestination (c. 427). Augustine wrote to correct the situation. Simultaneously, extensive opposition to Augustine’s teachings arose in Gaul [France] in the area of Massilia [Marseilles]. The system developed by those opposed to his teachings on predestination, original sin, human inability, irresistible grace and unconditional election was semi–Pelagianism, a modified Greek anthropology. The leaders of this movement were John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Faustus of Rhegium, Gennadius and Arnobius the Younger. Semi–Pelagianism remained the dominant system in Gaul, achieving acceptance in synods at Arles (472) and Lyons (475) until condemned at the Council of Orange in 529, which asserted a modified Augustinianism. This somewhat arbitrary, synergistic system is described by Philip Schaff:
Semi–Pelagianism is a somewhat vague and indefinite attempt at reconciliation, hovering midway between the sharply marked systems of Pelagius and Augustine...It proceeded from the combined influence of the pre–Augustinian synergism and monastic legalism. Its leading idea is, that divine grace and the human will jointly accomplish the work of conversion and sanctification, and that ordinarily man must take the first step. It rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral soundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. It disowns the Pelagian conception of grace as a mere external auxiliary; but also, quite as decidedly, the Augustinian doctrines of the sovereignty, irresistibleness, and limitation of grace; and affirms the necessity and the internal operation of grace with and through human agency, a general atonement through Christ, and a predestination to salvation conditioned by the foreknowledge of faith. The union of the Pelagian and Augustinian elements thus attempted is not, however, an inward organic coalescence, but rather a mechanical and arbitrary combination, which really satisfies neither the one interest nor the other, but commonly leans to the Pelagian side. ................................WR.Downing

 

Semi-Pelagianism involved doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views both of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation. The label "Semi - Pelagian," however, is a relatively modern expression, which apparently appeared first in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), and became associated with the theology of the Jesuit Luis Molina (1535 - 1600). The term, nevertheless, was not a happy choice, because the so-called Semi - Pelagians wanted to be anything but half - Pelagians. It would be more correct to call them Semi - Augustinians who, while rejecting the doctrines of Pelagius and respecting Augustine, were not willing to follow the ultimate consequences of his theology.

Church councils condemned Pelagianism in 418 and again in 431, but this rejection did not mean the acceptance of everything in the Augustinian system. Augustine's teaching on grace may be summarized as follows: Humanity shared in Adam's sin and therefore has become a massa damnationis from which no one can be extricated save by a special gift of divine grace that cannot be merited; yet God in his inscrutable wisdom chooses some to be saved and grants graces that will infallibly but freely lead them to salvation. The number of the elect is set and can be neither increased nor decreased. Nevertheless, Vitalis of Carthage and a community of monks at Hadrumetum, Africa (c. 427), contested these principles, asserting that they destroyed freedom of the will and all moral responsibility. They, in turn, affirmed that the unaided will performed the initial act of faith. In response Augustine produced Grace and Free Will and Rebuke and Grace, which contain a resume of his arguments against the Semi - Pelagians, and stress the necessary preparation of the will by prevenient grace.

The issue became heated in the fifth century when some monks in southern Gaul, led by John Cassian, Hilary of Arles, Vincent of Lerins, and Faustus of Riez, joined in the controversy. These men objected to a number of points in the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace, namely, the assertion of the total bondage of the will, of the priority and irresistibility of grace, and of rigid predestination. They agreed with Augustine as to the seriousness of sin, yet they regarded his doctrine of predestination as new, therefore in conflict with tradition and dangerous because it makes all human efforts superfluous. In opposition to Augustinianism, Cassian taught that though a sickness is inherited through Adam's sin, human free will has not been entirely obliterated. Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God. In other words, divine grace and human free will must work together in salvation. In opposition to the stark predestinarianism of Augustine, Cassian held to the doctrine of God's universal will to save, and that predestination is simply divine foreknowledge.
After Augustine's death, the controversy became more heated; and Prosper of Aquitaine became his champion, replying to the Gallic monks, including Vincent of Lerins. Vincent incorrectly understood Augustine's doctrines of perseverance and predestination to mean that God's elect cannot sin. Nevertheless, he was not entirely wrong in recognizing the practical dangers inherent in Augustine's teaching on grace, and that this teaching deviated from Catholic tradition.

Prosper appealed to Rome on behalf of his master, and though Celestine I praised Augustine, he gave no specific approval to the bishop's teachings on grace and predestination. Hence, Semi - Pelagian beliefs continued to circulate in Gaul with Faustus of Riez as the outstanding spokesman. He condemned the heresy of Pelagianism, teaching instead that natural powers were not sufficient to attain salvation. The free will, while not extinct, was weak and could not be exercised for salvation without the aid of grace. Faustus, however, rejected the predestinarian conception of a divine monergism and taught that human will, by virtue of the freedom left in it, takes the beginning step toward God. Salvation, therefore, is accomplished by the cooperation of human and divine factors, and predestination is merely God's foreknowledge of what a person has freely decided. Grace, to Faustus, meant the divine illumination of human will, and not, as it did to Augustine, the regenerative power of grace in the heart.

The debate about Semi - Pelagianism continued well into the sixth century, when Caesarius of Arles convened the Synod of Orange (529). Here Caesarius succeeded in dogmatizing a number of principles against the Semi - Pelagians. In doing so, however, the synod did not accept Augustine's full doctrine of grace, especially not his concept of divine grace that works irresistibly in the predestinated. In 531, Boniface II approved the acts of this council, thus giving it ecumenical authority. Semi - Pelagianism, as a historical movement, subsequently declined, but the pivotal issue of Semi - Pelagianism, the priority of the human will over the grace of God in the initial work of salvation, did not die out.

R Kyle
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

 

Spurgeon was referencing hyper-Calvinists with that remark. As far as I know no one on the BB thinks that before we can bid folks to believe on Christ they must already be regenerate.

You have to recognize the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism proper.

 

Sometimes a residue of things remain even if we don't want to see it. I hope we never come to a point where we believe a man can be regenerated before even a word from God comes to them, that can take away a gospel for sinners and offer a gospel for saints


"In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must he regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false. It takes away a gospel for sinners and offers us a gospel for saints. It is anything hut a ministry of free grace."
C. H. Spurgeon

History is important to learn from our mistakes so we will not make them again.

 

Since no Calvinist on the BB to my knowledge believes what you think some must I would say that you are seeing things that aren't present.

Please tell me who believes that here on the BB.

Yes. That's why you should study it. Try Murray's book:Spurgeon vs.Hyper-Calvinism

 

I've read and recommended it and you told me you meet the author in person, the quote I gave is in that book to.

I mainly gave it for non-cals to see Spurgeons outlook on things. I am not accusing someone of nothing, just for those who might get the wrong vive as I have before. That if a residue remains they can see Spurgeons idea on it.

 

Is that what you see, wow. I don't. I see their main argument is some don't even have the ability to come to Jesus, which to me is telling me we need to spread the word about the hope of Jesus to the world not to spread a message there is those with no hope. We all know that with a message of just hope through Jesus there are those who will not come, but they still see hope for them. Their is nothing wrong with hope in God in a hopeless world.

Jesus is the hope for the whole world it is those who don't listen and learn from the Father through the words of Jesus who do not come. Most believers that I see fight against Calvinist is those who see hope in God for the hopeless.

 

It should be noted that a "Hyper-Calvinist" is not simply a "really serious Calvinist." There are actual different beliefs about truth and practice that even a "very serious" Calvinist would disagree with.