Sympathy for the Arminian

[sag38]

Hence the chasm broadens betwixt the two camps....:tear:

There is only a chasm amongst those who dig one. In my church I am more of a four pointer. My youth pastor seems to lean more toward five. We get along just fine. Now on this debate board there are some ugly folks on both sides who need to be taken to the wood shed and taught some manners. :tonofbricks:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I have never been a fan of Calvin or Calvinism. I have never studied Calvin or Calvinism.

That's unfortunate. Calvin's Institutes is a classic of both Christian scholarship and Western Civilization.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So then, what should we stand for? The Unbiblical and illogical heresy of Finneyism? Should we just all check our Bibles and our brains at the door and be a bunch of drooling, brain dead synergist zombies?

I don't take these pretenses of institutional religion seriously anymore. All these groups take for granted that they speak for God (without acknowledging that what is said is often ideologically motivated & culturally conditioned).

I guess if we have to divide, why couldn't we divide over who was doing a better job of feeding widows & orphans?

 

[The Biblicist]

That's unfortunate. Calvin's Institutes is a classic of both Christian scholarship and Western Civilization.

The Bible is a greater classic and final in its authority while Calvin and His institutes is just another example of uninspired religious literature. I am not a followr of Calvin or any other uninspired man.

However, I have taken theology in college and Seminary and am well aware of the various differences between Calvinists. I just like Paul on this subject much better.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The Bible is a greater classic and final in its authority while Calvin and His institutes is just another example of uninspired religious literature.

I agree. However, "uninspired" is not the same as "uninstructive".

I am not a followr of Calvin or any other uninspired man.

You don't have to be a "follower" of a man to be a well read and well studied man.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree. However, "uninspired" is not the same as "uninstructive".



You don't have to be a "follower" of a man to be a well read and well studied man.

Ok, I see your point. But I am a well read man even if Calvin's Instittues is not among the books I have read. I don't think you need to read every book to be a well read man. If so, then no man is a well read man as no man has read all books. I have nearly 3000 books in my personal library and every one of them I have either read or repeatedly use (reference works).

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Ok, I see your point. But I am a well read man even if Calvin's Instittues is not among the books I have read. I don't think you need to read every book to be a well read man. If so, then no man is a well read man as no man has read all books. I have nearly 3000 books in my personal library and every one of them I have either read or repeatedly use (reference works).

I don't think you need to read every book, either, but Institutes was so influential on our culture, touching on everything from theology to economics to the foundations of liberty, I would think it would kind of important.

 

[Van]

Falsehood Cornucopia

I sympathize with the Arminian Christian. The God portrayed by the Calvinists is unfair. According to them He is not an ‘equal-opportunity employer-God.’

Calvinists must construct strawman argument like this one to hide the truth, Calvinism view of God is found nowhere in the Bible. Does God provide the opportunity for mercy to all? No, some have so hardened their hearts, like the first soil of Matthew 13, they cannot understand the gospel, others never even hear the gospel. So strawman argument #1.

He does not call and employ all men equally to salvation. Instead He discriminates as to whom He will call and employ [elect].

Strawman argument #2. All men who behold Christ high and lifted up are drawn by the lovingkindness of God, who sent His Son to die for all mankind.

Incredibly, His discrimination is not based on anything we can perceive. His choice of employees [the Elect] makes no earthly sense.

Strawman argument #3 God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

It is not based on past job performance since all have failed miserably and fallen short of the glory of God. Nor is it based on family connections. The Jews had the esteemed patriarchs in their blood line, yet by far most Jews were rejected. It is not based on the religious propensity of the candidate. Nicodemus didn’t qualify, though he was the most prestigious religious man in all Israel.

Strawman argument #4. This assertion misrepresents Arminianism, Arminians embrace all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that worldly position, wealth, well born, or power counts for nothing toward God's election for salvation, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

Nor is God’s choice based on our friendship and support of His Son since He died for us while we were still His enemies.

Strawman argument #5 Jesus died for us while we were still sinners, and thus before we trusted in Him, and before God credited our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5,24.

Furthermore, to make matters worse, His election is not based on foreseen future faith or good works.

Strawman argument #6 God chose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love Him, James 2:5.

God had the audacity to elect Jacob over Esau (a perfectly reasonable candidate) before either was born….before either had done good or evil.

Strawman argument #7, Jacob was chosen conditionally, so the older would serve the younger, and were not elected for salvation, however they were elected during their lifetime.

In fact, His election of Jacob (and all other Elect) was before the foundation of the world.

Strawman argument #8, God's individual election of Jacob occurred during Jacob's lifetime, just as every one of God's individual elections for salvation occurs after we have lived without mercy 1 Peter 2:9-10, and after our faith has been credited as righteousness, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

It was even before Prevenient Grace had come into their lives -- before they could will to come or not will to come to Christ. Where is the fairness in that, I ask?

Strawman argument #9, if God can elect individuals before creation, He can elect foreseen individuals with foreseen faith based on foreseen Prevenient Grace. So the argument is specious, though our individual election for salvation actually occurs during our lifetime, James 2:5.

And last, but not least, how fair is it to have the Gospel preached to those whom God wills to not give Holy Spirit effectual regenerating grace in order that the spiritually dead sinner may spiritually hear, see and believe?

Strawman argument #10, Regeneration means to be made alive, and this occurs when a person is put in Christ, thus we are made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5. The "effectual call" is a Calvinist fiction, found nowhere in scripture.

Is that grace not owed all, since God loves all His creation? (John 3:16).

Strawman argument #11, grace is a gift bestowed as an expression of love, and is never owed, merited, or deserved.

Is not His withholding of saving grace a sure sign of His unrighteousness?

Strawman argument #12, goes so far into absurdity, it demeans God.

How can man be held accountable for that which God does not will to give him, but which he allegedly desperately needs?

Strawman argument #13, God holds men accountable for their deeds, not predestined but volitional, just as Adam's was.

He is a just God who gives to every man exactly what he deserves - justice, or He gives to some men what they do not deserve - mercy.

Calvinism must resort to fabrication and disinformation because if the doctrine is presented accurately, its inherent absurdity would be obvious to all.

 

[Van]

That's unfortunate. Calvin's Institutes is a classic of both Christian scholarship and Western Civilization.

Yes it is a wonderful book, just skip Part XII, chapters 21-24.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Yes it is a wonderful book, just skip chapters 20-23.

Judging by your posts, you may have trouble with the big words.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This assertion misrepresents Arminianism

And misrepresenting people's beliefs is bad, right Van?

 

[webdog]

And misrepresenting people's beliefs is bad, right Van?

Apparently you don't think so as you do it daily.

 

[Van]

Hi JohndeereFan, you like to ask questions that imply ignorance or malfeasance. Circumlocutions do not really hide prevarications. Empty suits give themselves away, attacking the qualifications and character of an opponent, as slyly as possible, demonstrating malice rather than benevolence.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Hi JohndeereFan, you like to ask questions that imply ignorance or malfeasance. Circumlocutions do not really hide prevarications. Empty suits give themselves away, attacking the qualifications and character of an opponent, as slyly as possible, demonstrating malice rather than benevolence.

In other words, you got caught and now you're lashing out in order to distract us from your hypocrisy.

 

[Van]

Hi Johndeerefan, in other words you are caught and are lashing out to distract from your malfeasance.

What is the title of Part XII? Tick tock

 

[MB]

I sympathize with the Arminian Christian. The God portrayed by the Calvinists is unfair. According to them He is not an ‘equal-opportunity employer-God.’ He does not call and employ all men equally to salvation. Instead He discriminates as to whom He will call and employ [elect]. Incredibly, His discrimination is not based on anything we can perceive. His choice of employees [the Elect] makes no earthly sense. It is not based on past job performance since all have failed miserably and fallen short of the glory of God. Nor is it based on family connections. The Jews had the esteemed patriarchs in their blood line, yet by far most Jews were rejected. It is not based on the religious propensity of the candidate. Nicodemus didn’t qualify, though he was the most prestigious religious man in all Israel. Nor is God’s choice based on our friendship and support of His Son since He died for us while we were still His enemies.

Furthermore, to make matters worse, His election is not based on foreseen future faith or good works. God had the audacity to elect Jacob over Esau (a perfectly reasonable candidate) before either was born….before either had done good or evil. In fact, His election of Jacob (and all other Elect) was before the foundation of the world. It was even before Prevenient Grace had come into their lives -- before they could will to come or not will to come to Christ. Where is the fairness in that, I ask?

And last, but not least, how fair is it to have the Gospel preached to those whom God wills to not give Holy Spirit effectual regenerating grace in order that the spiritually dead sinner may spiritually hear, see and believe? Is that grace not owed all, since God loves all His creation? (John 3:16). Is not His withholding of saving grace a sure sign of His unrighteousness? How can man be held accountable for that which God does not will to give him, but which he allegedly desperately needs?

I, therefore, sympathize with the Arminians’ version of God. Their God is fair. He calls all men to Christ, giving them an equal chance to believe or reject the Savior. He is a just God who gives to every man exactly what he deserves….whether salvation or judgment, depending on the free will choice man makes. The Parable of the Vineyard Workers exemplifies this perfectly. God is a just employer who does not discriminate, calling all men for an equal opportunity salvation. Furthermore, He pays His workers exactly what is right and fair because He is a good God. However, I do believe there is a small problem with His giving the same wage earned by the all-day worker to the worker who labored only one hour. I can’t help but agree with the first worker that it was unjust of the Lord to give the last worker that which he did not deserve or earn. To be fair and equitable the Lord should have also given the first worker more pay, though the Lord made no such promise.

Fortunately that parable does not address the doctrine of the sovereign grace of God in election, whereby the Calvinists insist that God does no injustice in freely and mercifully giving to some sinners saving grace which they do not deserve, while righteously giving to other sinners the justice which they do deserve. Otherwise I might have to re-think the Arminian position, since I claim to be an obedient Christian who believes all the Lord reveals in His Word.

Just another claim of a deserved election that obviously isn't there. No where in the Bible does it ever show an elect gentile. As far as not being able to hear. Please explain How Cain was able to speak with God that is him being dead and all.
MB

 

[Van]

I sympathize with the Arminian Christian. The God portrayed by the Calvinists is unfair. According to them He is not an ‘equal-opportunity employer-God.’

Calvinists must construct strawman argument like this one to hide the truth, Calvinism view of God is found nowhere in the Bible. Does God provide the opportunity for mercy to all? No, some have so hardened their hearts, like the first soil of Matthew 13, they cannot understand the gospel, others never even hear the gospel. So strawman argument #1.

He does not call and employ all men equally to salvation. Instead He discriminates as to whom He will call and employ [elect].

Strawman argument #2. All men who behold Christ high and lifted up are drawn by the lovingkindness of God, who sent His Son to die for all mankind.

Incredibly, His discrimination is not based on anything we can perceive. His choice of employees [the Elect] makes no earthly sense.

Strawman argument #3 God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

It is not based on past job performance since all have failed miserably and fallen short of the glory of God. Nor is it based on family connections. The Jews had the esteemed patriarchs in their blood line, yet by far most Jews were rejected. It is not based on the religious propensity of the candidate. Nicodemus didn’t qualify, though he was the most prestigious religious man in all Israel.

Strawman argument #4. This assertion misrepresents Arminianism, Arminians embrace all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that worldly position, wealth, well born, or power counts for nothing toward God's election for salvation, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

Nor is God’s choice based on our friendship and support of His Son since He died for us while we were still His enemies.

Strawman argument #5 Jesus died for us while we were still sinners, and thus before we trusted in Him, and before God credited our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5,24.

Furthermore, to make matters worse, His election is not based on foreseen future faith or good works.

Strawman argument #6 God chose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love Him, James 2:5.

God had the audacity to elect Jacob over Esau (a perfectly reasonable candidate) before either was born….before either had done good or evil.

Strawman argument #7, Jacob was chosen conditionally, so the older would serve the younger, and were not elected for salvation, however they were elected during their lifetime.

In fact, His election of Jacob (and all other Elect) was before the foundation of the world.

Strawman argument #8, God's individual election of Jacob occurred during Jacob's lifetime, just as every one of God's individual elections for salvation occurs after we have lived without mercy 1 Peter 2:9-10, and after our faith has been credited as righteousness, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

It was even before Prevenient Grace had come into their lives -- before they could will to come or not will to come to Christ. Where is the fairness in that, I ask?

Strawman argument #9, if God can elect individuals before creation, He can elect foreseen individuals with foreseen faith based on foreseen Prevenient Grace. So the argument is specious, though our individual election for salvation actually occurs during our lifetime, James 2:5.

And last, but not least, how fair is it to have the Gospel preached to those whom God wills to not give Holy Spirit effectual regenerating grace in order that the spiritually dead sinner may spiritually hear, see and believe?

Strawman argument #10, Regeneration means to be made alive, and this occurs when a person is put in Christ, thus we are made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5. The "effectual call" is a Calvinist fiction, found nowhere in scripture.

Is that grace not owed all, since God loves all His creation? (John 3:16).

Strawman argument #11, grace is a gift bestowed as an expression of love, and is never owed, merited, or deserved.

Is not His withholding of saving grace a sure sign of His unrighteousness?

Strawman argument #12, goes so far into absurdity, it demeans God.

How can man be held accountable for that which God does not will to give him, but which he allegedly desperately needs?

Strawman argument #13, God holds men accountable for their deeds, not predestined but volitional, just as Adam's was.

He is a just God who gives to every man exactly what he deserves - justice, or He gives to some men what they do not deserve - mercy.

Calvinism must resort to fabrication and disinformation because if the doctrine is presented accurately, its inherent absurdity would be obvious to all.

 

[Robert Snow]

Hi JohndeereFan, you like to ask questions that imply ignorance or malfeasance. Circumlocutions do not really hide prevarications. Empty suits give themselves away, attacking the qualifications and character of an opponent, as slyly as possible, demonstrating malice rather than benevolence.

Now you've gone and done it. Poor old Jack will have to dust off his dictionary. :laugh:

 

[InTheLight]

Now you've gone and done it. Poor old Jack will have to dust off his dictionary. :laugh:

I presume it's dogeared and worn out from having it next to his KJV.

 

[agedman]

Hi JohndeereFan, you like to ask questions that imply ignorance or malfeasance. Circumlocutions do not really hide prevarications. Empty suits give themselves away, attacking the qualifications and character of an opponent, as slyly as possible, demonstrating malice rather than benevolence.

This post reminded me of centuries ago students in debate class would think that part of winning was who could command the use of the larger multisyllabic words. I loved it when the judges awarded the win to one who used the simplest of terms.


Van, that isn't meant to be taken as a criticism, but the dusty memory of the past brought to my mind brought a smile to which I thank you. :thumbs: