Some Pebbles For Arminians To Chew

Okay. Thanks for correcting me. Is there a view that believes the common misunderstanding like I have heard? I am not arguing here--arguing is not my style--I just like to understand your beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.

Do you believe that Christ died only for the elect? That He died for everyone, but doesn't allow some to come to Him? Tell me in simple terms please. Some of these posts that are 10 miles long are just too much for my simple mind to digest. I probably won't agree with you, but I would like to try to understand a bit what Calvinist believe. Thanks.

 

As long as you believe that you are saved because Christ died for your sins, it does not bother me whether you disagree with Calvinism.

Unfortunately there are people who believe what you stated earlier, but I personally do not know any of them. Sometimes they call themselves Calvinist, which lends to the confusion, but most Calvinists would not agree with them.

I believe that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men, but when you take passages like Galatians 3:13 ("Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"), does that mean that unbelievers were redeemed also? I think this means that Christ only redeemed the elect.

This brings up another point. Sometimes people misunderstand what we mean by "the elect". If you substitute "those who will believe" then people tend to get offended less. For example, if I said "I think this means that Christ only redeemed those who will believe" it probably would not sound as bad to you. Well, the two things mean the same thing. All of the elect will choose to believe, and all who choose to believe are elect.

That brings up yet another point. When we say "those who will believe", we mean that none would believe on their own but God has decided to change certain ones so that, after He changes them, they choose to believe. The rest could choose to believe if they wanted. It is not that God won't allow them to come to Him. It is that their sin won't allow it, and they cannot overcome their sin.

Admittedly things brings up some questions, like for example, why doesn't God do this for everyone? Well, God simply has not told us why He does not do this for everyone. What we are told is that God is good, and He always does right. We are also told that, if God wanted to make a sinful creature just for the purpose of showing His wrath agaisnt sin, that we could have no valid objection. That's difficult to understand, but we have to believe it because the Bible is clear.

I didn't mean to ramble. Sorry about that, and I hope it helps explain what we believe. I see from your profile that you homeschool. We do too, and it's always nice to meet others who do. May God bless you and your family.

 

I haven't read Calvin. But I have read Arminius. You really should read Arminius. You'd find out that the "Arminians" here aren't Arminians at all. They're much closer to being Pelagians. </font>[/QUOTE]I could do that but why don't you just tell me what Pelagians are and I will let you know if I fall under that label. So far the calvinist labels aren't working for me.

 

I could agree with you right up too the 6th paragraph,Whatever. I think the Bible implies foreknowledge and that is in someway the answer too understanding this whole mess. That being that God knows no time and all is laid out before HIm. AS I have said before and someone else pointed it out just recently also.

 

"Pelagian" is not a Calvinist label. Pelagius lived at the time of Augustine, and taught that man could accept God on his own without any help from God. His reasoning was much like some on this board - "why would God command man to repent and believe unless man is able to repent and believe on his own?" Arminians are sometimes called semi-Pelagians because they start down the same path, but they do not go quite that far. Some on this board do go this far, so the charge is justified.

 

Arminius believed in total depravity. He believed and stated clearly that man in his fallen condition is totally unable to respond to the Gospel on his own, or even prepare himself to respond to the Gospel. That's why I would call most of the free willers on this board Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. I have yet to see a single free willer on this board who believes what Arminius believed on this point.

 

"Pelagian" is not a Calvinist label. Pelagius lived at the time of Augustine, and taught that man could accept God on his own without any help from God. His reasoning was much like some on this board - "why would God command man to repent and believe unless man is able to repent and believe on his own?" Arminians are sometimes called semi-Pelagians because they start down the same path, but they do not go quite that far. Some on this board do go this far, so the charge is justified. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Whatever. I am not a Pelagian then from that definition. I imagine that calvinist would label me one because of their (IMHO) screwy definition of accepting a gift. But then if that be the case then every calvinist is one too. For they all did some type of work to/while being saved.

 

Arminius believed in total depravity. He believed and stated clearly that man in his fallen condition is totally unable to respond to the Gospel on his own, or even prepare himself to respond to the Gospel. That's why I would call most of the free willers on this board Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. I have yet to see a single free willer on this board who believes what Arminius believed on this point. </font>[/QUOTE]Is there one on here who believes that man can respond to God on their own? I haven't seen one but could be wrong.

 

You weren't rambling and it does help explain what you believe. I do agree with you on some points and we will just agree to disagree on others.

Homeschooling is my passion. I could talk about it forever--I posted a 10-mile post about it on the homeschool forum. (nobody ever posts on that thread )! ) After 7 years I have never been tired of it--it gets better and better as I become more experienced. My mind is constantly working on ideas to make it enjoyable and profitable. It is a HUGE amount of work and takes a lot of time, but is SO worth it. When my baby graduates in 11 years ( I will be 56) someone had better throw a party for ME!

I too am always glad to meet fellow homeschoolers. How many kids?

 

Actually, Marcia, both Helen and Me4Him have both said that they believe exactly this way. Babies are born with a sin nature, but not sinners. They are neutral until they get to the point where they understand right from wrong and understand the law. At that point they make a choice to either be good or bad. This is Pelagianism and was condemned as a heresy in the 4th century.

 

You are wrong. Check out the total depravity threads. I don't remember a single free willer who reponded in those threads who believes in total depravity. Just look at all the threads where free willers insist that the fall made us spiritually sick but not spiritually dead. That's just another way of denying total depravity. It assumes that we're able to respond without first having to be quickened because we're not totally spiritually dead.

 

I homeschool as well, samarelda. I have just started with my 5-year old son. I will have to check out the homeschooling forum and see what's going on. And I promise not to post anything on Calvinism there!

 

See Calvi's remarks for examples of those who believe in just that.

But I was referring more to those who are semi-Pelagians and lean toward Pelagianism. They deny total depravity and believe that man is born with the ability to respond to God's call of his own free will.

Arminius believed in total depravity and denied emphatically the charge that he believed otherwise.

In short, I haven't seen a single free willer on this board who is actually an Arminian. They're all much closer to being Pelagian.

 

See Calvi's remarks for examples of those who believe in just that.

But I was referring more to those who are semi-Pelagians and lean toward Pelagianism. They deny total depravity and believe that man is born with the ability to respond to God's call of his own free will.

Arminius believed in total depravity and denied emphatically the charge that he believed otherwise.

In short, I haven't seen a single free willer on this board who is actually an Arminian. They're all much closer to being Pelagian. </font>[/QUOTE]Pelagius taught one is morally neutral and can choose to be good. I have not seen anyone post that view here.

The sin nature inherited from Adam and an act of sin are not the same thing, though the latter follows from the former. Ron Nash, a strong Calvinist, believed that babies are saved. He even wrote a book on it.

To believe that one is born with a sin nature is NOT the same as believing that one is born morally neutral! Nor does anyone here believe man can choose to be good. You are mixing up the Pelagian ability to choose to be good with the belief in the ability to respond to God's call - they are not the same thing.

You guys make dichotomies such that anyone who disagrees with your version of Calvinism is automatically a "free willer" and/or Pelagian and/or semi-Pelagian. That is irresponsible.

 

But that is exactly the point that Helen and Me4Him make over and over. If a command is given, there has to be an ability inherent in that person to obey. This is Pelagianism.

I would agree with you normally about this. But I argued with Helen and Me4Him for 3 pages because they said exactly this. They said the sin nature did not affect the propensity to sin and that babies were born innocent and neutral. This is Pelagianism.

No we are not. I am merely restating exactly what they have said. I don't agree with either Pelagianism (the moral neutrality with the ability to choose to do good or evil) or Arminianism (total depravity with the ability to respond to God's call through prevenient grace). I fully understand both positions because I have studied them. I also know what people have said in the discussions I have had with them.

Those are not our labels. Those are their labels. I use the term "free-willer" because they didn't like the term Arminian. Then I come to find out they are actually Pelagian. I have no idea where you come out down on these issues, so I don't label you.

 

Well I believe part of what the Arminians believe and (believe it or not) I believe part of what the Calvinists believe but I don't believe all of what either believe. What does that make me?

And I too believe that children are born with a sinful body because of the sin of Adam that is why they die but are not sinners until they come to an age where they become as Apostle Paul "sin revived and I died". In other words "The Grace of God which bringeth Salvation appeared unto all men, "A spirit in man that teaches him right from wrong".etc". So what does that make me?

Where would you label me I really would be interested in knowing.

 

I would label you confused. That's as far as I'm willing to take it with you, because you, at least, seem to consider the Scriptures that are presented. The other two I have mentioned are so wrapped up in their system they can't be taught.

 

Calvibaptist:
I would just say that I am not confused. I use the Scriptures for everything I believe. Reason I don't accept all the Calvinists believe is because I believe all time and chance has happened to all men. Reason I don't believe all the Arminians believe is because they believe in a fall of which I do not. You didn't ask but I believe you are just wrong in your belief about the "elect" and God preordaining me to Hell.


Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), Chapter 9
"11": I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

I almost knew that it would be you that would answer Calvibaptist. And you don't hold to all of the Calvinist doctrine either, for you said you believe babies are in Heaven.