To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

[Yeshua1]

Reading a book by a particular theologian or even having a favorite author is not the same as revering a man as if he is above reproach and to be worshiped. The over-emphasized reverence toward John Calvin is man worship. Everytime there's a debate in here about DoG, the arguments are ALWAYS based on John Calvin's teachings, and when John Calvin is attacked, the Calvie's lose their mind.

I have the same issue with others in my own denomination with Jack Hyles. Man worship.

Your claim that having a man teach is "needful" to the exclusion of a person who chooses not to base their theology off of any particular man is hogwash.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:26

Your analysis of 1 Cor 1:12 is WAY off. Those who claimed to follow Christ were not wrong because Paul himself said he followed Christ in 1 Cor 11:1. Paul wasn't emphasizing that they were wrong for who they claimed to follow, because each one of the persons named were godly people, but because of the DIVISION it caused that prevented them from all having one mind in Christ. 1 Cor 1:10, Phil 2:2-5.

Had they "followed" those particular groups and had the same mind in Christ without the division, or elevated any one man to the point of worship, there would not have been any problems. Paul makes this interpretation obvious when he said "Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ".

I have read calvin, read Hodgh, berkhof, geisler, Erickson, grudem, Chafer, so would say that as a calvinist, have NOT wedded myself to calvin, but would say that as a dispy cal, have taken the DoG and sotierology he expressed, but not His Amil/baby baptism !

regardless of any system we take to understand the bible, and we ALL have one, its still the bible ALONE that is the primary/inspired text!

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is the verse that says there is a "moving force" behind the asking, knocking, and seeking? Why is it that all Calvinistic approaches need to add to the word of God, and then attempt to back it by proof-texting it with other misinterpreted verses taken out of context?

The "moving force" behind the asking is FREE WILL.

"Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:28

There was certainly a moving INFLUENCE (Jesus), but a moving INFLUENCE is not a moving FORCE, as in forced against her "as thou wilt".

Seeking and knocking in Matthew 7:7-8 are voluntary, free will acts. Any force imposed moots the definition of voluntary.

Calvinist always say "It's not force, God is helping them seek" or God is "moving" them to knock. It's voluntary, but yet they can't do it voluntarily unless there is a "moving force". Go Figure.

there is no true free will for us since the Fall!
probably the biggest "myth" in non cal theology is that somehow we can still come to God by ourselves!

BOTh cals/arms affirm that the Fall debased us, made us spiritually unable/unwilling to cometo Christ ourselves, that we MUST have God effectually apply Grcae towards us first!

Do you deny that?

 

[agedman]

there is no true free will for us since the Fall!
probably the biggest "myth" in non cal theology is that somehow we can still come to God by ourselves!

BOTh cals/arms affirm that the Fall debased us, made us spiritually unable/unwilling to cometo Christ ourselves, that we MUST have God effectually apply Grcae towards us first!

Do you deny that?

Of course the Arm folks deny that view. They consider the fall did not effect their freedom of choice and they have the total volition to make to "invite Christ into their heart" choice irregardless of the fall.

The Arm folks consider they were born with a propensity to sin, but not "in sin."

They cannot not take the psalmist literally when he states, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalms 58:3

Would Christ EVER want to inhabit a dirty, sinful, self willed human who extends an invitation to God to join him? NO!!!!!

Believers are "NEW creatures, created in Christ Jesus." We await a "new body" in the heavenly, and war against the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (all that the old nature and body have to offer).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If it isn't Calvinism, it isn't the Gospel. The grand error in any noncalvinistic system is the idea that one is elected on the basis of a certain quality or action.

The Scriptures scream un-equivocally that there is some "action" one must take in order to solidify or (even for a Calvinist) know one's status as "elect". No one (for instance) who fails to repent and believe is qualified as "saved" or "elect" in the Calvinist system either, Aaron.

You act as though one can NEVER claim to have repented of sin and believed in order to knowingly be "elect". Even according to Calvinism that is patently false.

So there's your word "action" rendered meaningless....let's go on to your word "quality" now:

I will assume (since I've heard and read reams of Calvinist drivel) that you are implying the ancient Calvinist zeitgeist that one must in the Arminian system posses some "quality" or "ability" or "stat" in order to be able to repent in the Arminian system....

That foolishness is easily rendered falsified by merely pointing out that what that stems from is super-imposing a Calvinist pre-supposition onto a system which already rejects it:

Namely, that to make a free "choice" is NOT, I repeat NOT guaranteed by a pre-existing set of conditions which act as sufficient causal guarrantors of that choice (as Calvinism assumes without Biblical warrant). But, rather that to those who believe in Libertarian Free Will, "choices" are "free" if and only if they are made without exterior causal influence; or, to put it differently, just in case they might have possibly chosen to do otherwise. (Calvinism, by default, must deny BOTH possibilities, or it isn't Calvinism).

It's only a "quality" if you are a Calvinist..............if one is NOT a Calvinist, than your point is moot.

In short: You are trying to explain an Arminian notion by super-imposing a Calvinist assumption UPON IT...and then (inadvertently) erecting a Straw-man argument to deny it.....
Here's a link that puts your clearly elementary error of thinking into simpler (and more entertaining) terms.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpre...ianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/

From that link a summary of the error:

This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic, he frames both people as equally capable of coming to Christ (the libertarian view), then effectively asserts that one is in fact incapable because he lacks a certain trait (a determinist conceit). The fact that he goes on to frame this rather ridiculous strawman as properly representing Arminian theology is beyond absurd.

Actual Arminian soteriology teaches that men are by nature in bondage to sin, but God calls men to repentance and faith in Christ by His grace, by which men are able to believe.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace…. (Galatians 1:15)

When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:25-26)

Faith in Christ doesn’t require being smart or wise, but does require that sinners incline their ears at His gracious call and humble themselves under the Spirit’s conviction. Besides being fairly obvious, these realities of Arminian theology are public knowledge and well-defended by many scholars and writers. Yet for some inexplicable reason, Calvinistic apologists persist in their wildly accusatory claims that Arminians must believe they possess more of some innate ability than those who don’t believe.

 

[agedman]

A person is one of two seeds.

The devil.

The Christ.

There is NO mid - free choice in my will - seed.

One is either a slave to the devil or free in Christ.

For one to consider that there is some "free choice" outside of the direct and purposed work of God through the Holy Spirit and Scriptures is not biblically sound.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Of course the Arm folks deny that view. They consider the fall did not effect their freedom of choice and they have the total volition to make to "invite Christ into their heart" choice irregardless of the fall.

You have obviously NEVER read an Arminian statement of Theology...because that is patently false. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT Arminian belief whatsoever....You are obviously, and I am not insulting you here, but simply ignorant of Arminian belief.
My guess is this (and if you are honest with yourself, you will admit this) your knowledge of what "Arminians" believe comes from Calvinists or other non-Arminians since Arminians reject what you just said on it's face. Otherwise....there would be no notion of "Prevenient Grace" in Arminianism.....but there is. There is such a notion because they know that no one possesses the ability to "choose" to repent and believe without a special intervention of God's "grace". It's as integral a part of Arminianism as it is Calvinism.....But, you obviously don't know that.

I remain unsurprised.

Lemme clue you in:
I can directly quote Pelagius himself........Yes, Pelagius personally as denying that statement. (I've read his works and you haven't.....and I'm also quite confident that no Calvinist Polemicist you study has either.)
You need to start learning some things from sources other than other Calvinists who ALSO....have never read an Arminian confession from their own pen. You only know what some Calvinists claim that Arminians believe, and it's obvious. You aren't quoting Arminian Theology, you are quoting what Calvinists say Arminians believe.

The Arm folks consider they were born with a propensity to sin, but not "in sin."

Also patently false.......Arminians accept "Total Depravity".....but not the assumption of "INABILITY".....a distinction you show yourself utterly incapable of making......It's ignorant, and I want the thousands of people who read this forum to hear me say it:

Your statement is FALSE and bred of ignorance.

They cannot not take the psalmist literally when he states, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalms 58:3

NO..........we Don't (the first true thing you've said so far)......
Arminians do NOT believe infants "speak". It's a PSALM dude a PSALM!!!!
I maintain my children are pretty smart.....but, they weren't born "speaking". Did YOUR children come from the womb "speaking"???
Were YOUR children conveying coherent thoughts to you and submitting falsifiable propositions to you when they shot out of the shoot?

Do tell..........
If they did.........their thoughts MUST have been more erudite than the above statement that you just made.

My babies didn't literally "speak"....nor did yours.
Didn't the same Psalmist write this Calvinist proof-text only 7 chapters earlier:
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Can you answer this question for me:
Did David LITERALLY say that children were sinful when they were
CONCEIVED...or only when they were BORN, as you presently propose?
Mind you.......I'm pretty sure that your answer to the above question will be inextricably linked to your notion of "person-hood" and your beliefs about abortion....
Because, if we take you "LITERALLY" as you demand, than obviously David was wrong about whether they are sinners from "conception" or whether they are only sinners from "birth". Not to be-labor biology.........but, they aren't precisely the same thing. (Well, not LITERALLY anyway) :laugh:

Here's a fundamental hint:
You only derive doctrinal truths from poetic and wisdom literature which is previously known or taught in NON-POETIC literature........

Aren't you the one who thinks that (from another thread) flagellation with thorn-branches also LITERALLY washes away sin as well?

Would Christ EVER want to inhabit a dirty, sinful, self willed human who extends an invitation to God to join him? NO!!!!!

NO.....he washes it clean with his own blood first DUH ......Tell us Arminians something ELSE we don't already know. So far you ar 0 for 3 on new information.

Believers are "NEW creatures, created in Christ Jesus." We await a "new body" in the heavenly, and war against the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (all that the old nature and body have to offer).

Almost a soaring bit of rhetoric.......however, it's nothing more than a piecing together of 3 separate and un-related Biblical passages which have little or nothing to do with your statement as a whole and little to do with one another.
This piecemeal is equally as ingenius and relevant as if I'd rejoindered your post with saying:
"Whosever believeth" and "whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" and "why would ye DIE oh, Israel?"..........and pretended that all three statements (which are also Biblical quotes) were interrelated.

My advice to others I extend to you:
Quit while you're behind.

 

[DrJamesAch]

The Scriptures scream un-equivocally that there is some "action" one must take in order to solidify or (even for a Calvinist) know one's status as "elect". No one (for instance) who fails to repent and believe is qualified as "saved" or "elect" in the Calvinist system either, Aaron.

You act as though one can NEVER claim to have repented of sin and believed in order to knowingly be "elect". Even according to Calvinism that is patently false.

So there's your word "action" rendered meaningless....let's go on to your word "quality" now:

I will assume (since I've heard and read reams of Calvinist drivel) that you are implying the ancient Calvinist zeitgeist that one must in the Arminian system posses some "quality" or "ability" or "stat" in order to be able to repent in the Arminian system....

That foolishness is easily rendered falsified by merely pointing out that what that stems from is super-imposing a Calvinist pre-supposition onto a system which already rejects it:

Namely, that to make a free "choice" is NOT, I repeat NOT guaranteed by a pre-existing set of conditions which act as sufficient causal guarrantors of that choice (as Calvinism assumes without Biblical warrant). But, rather that to those who believe in Libertarian Free Will, "choices" are "free" if and only if they are made without exterior causal influence; or, to put it differently, just in case they might have possibly chosen to do otherwise. (Calvinism, by default, must deny BOTH possibilities, or it isn't Calvinism).

It's only a "quality" if you are a Calvinist..............if one is NOT a Calvinist, than your point is moot.

In short: You are trying to explain an Arminian notion by super-imposing a Calvinist assumption UPON IT...and then (inadvertently) erecting a Straw-man argument to deny it.....
Here's a link that puts your clearly elementary error of thinking into simpler (and more entertaining) terms.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpre...ianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/

From that link a summary of the error:

This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic, he frames both people as equally capable of coming to Christ (the libertarian view), then effectively asserts that one is in fact incapable because he lacks a certain trait (a determinist conceit). The fact that he goes on to frame this rather ridiculous strawman as properly representing Arminian theology is beyond absurd.

Actual Arminian soteriology teaches that men are by nature in bondage to sin, but God calls men to repentance and faith in Christ by His grace, by which men are able to believe.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace…. (Galatians 1:15)

When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:25-26)

Faith in Christ doesn’t require being smart or wise, but does require that sinners incline their ears at His gracious call and humble themselves under the Spirit’s conviction. Besides being fairly obvious, these realities of Arminian theology are public knowledge and well-defended by many scholars and writers. Yet for some inexplicable reason, Calvinistic apologists persist in their wildly accusatory claims that Arminians must believe they possess more of some innate ability than those who don’t believe.

Checkmate!

 

[Luke2427]

Where is the verse that says there is a "moving force" behind the asking, knocking, and seeking? Why is it that all Calvinistic approaches need to add to the word of God, and then attempt to back it by proof-texting it with other misinterpreted verses taken out of context?

There are verses that tell us that, but needing them is a bit silly. That's like me claiming there is gravity and you saying, "WHERE IS THE VERSE THAT SAYS THERE IS GRAVITY!?!?! You Calvinists add gravity to the Scriptures!!"

Do you see how ridiculous that is?

The "moving force" behind the asking is FREE WILL.

Where is the verse that purports that nonsense?

"Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:28

There was certainly a moving INFLUENCE (Jesus), but a moving INFLUENCE is not a moving FORCE, as in forced against her "as thou wilt".

The question, James, is WHY? Why do some will and others NOT will?

You act like the will has no force behind it.

Why do you will to eat supper? Hunger moves you to will to do so.

Things move our will, James. Our will does not exist independently. It does not have its OWN being. It is not SELF-EXISTENT, sir.

Seeking and knocking in Matthew 7:7-8 are voluntary, free will acts. Any force imposed moots the definition of voluntary.

Balderdash! Behind volition is STILL the question, why?

Why do some wish to do this and others wish to do that?

The problem with you Arminians, or "non-cals" or whatever you want to call yourselves, is that you ask why only up to the "will of man" and then you immediately STOP and say, "THERE!! That's why!!"

And if anybody asks why one more time you plug your ears and start screaming, "FREE WILL, FREE WILL, FREE WILL!!!" refusing to reason any further.

 

[Winman]

The Scriptures scream un-equivocally that there is some "action" one must take in order to solidify or (even for a Calvinist) know one's status as "elect". No one (for instance) who fails to repent and believe is qualified as "saved" or "elect" in the Calvinist system either, Aaron.

You act as though one can NEVER claim to have repented of sin and believed in order to knowingly be "elect". Even according to Calvinism that is patently false.

So there's your word "action" rendered meaningless....let's go on to your word "quality" now:

I will assume (since I've heard and read reams of Calvinist drivel) that you are implying the ancient Calvinist zeitgeist that one must in the Arminian system posses some "quality" or "ability" or "stat" in order to be able to repent in the Arminian system....

That foolishness is easily rendered falsified by merely pointing out that what that stems from is super-imposing a Calvinist pre-supposition onto a system which already rejects it:

Namely, that to make a free "choice" is NOT, I repeat NOT guaranteed by a pre-existing set of conditions which act as sufficient causal guarrantors of that choice (as Calvinism assumes without Biblical warrant). But, rather that to those who believe in Libertarian Free Will, "choices" are "free" if and only if they are made without exterior causal influence; or, to put it differently, just in case they might have possibly chosen to do otherwise. (Calvinism, by default, must deny BOTH possibilities, or it isn't Calvinism).

It's only a "quality" if you are a Calvinist..............if one is NOT a Calvinist, than your point is moot.

In short: You are trying to explain an Arminian notion by super-imposing a Calvinist assumption UPON IT...and then (inadvertently) erecting a Straw-man argument to deny it.....
Here's a link that puts your clearly elementary error of thinking into simpler (and more entertaining) terms.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpre...ianism-entails-salvation-by-inherent-ability/

From that link a summary of the error:

This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic, he frames both people as equally capable of coming to Christ (the libertarian view), then effectively asserts that one is in fact incapable because he lacks a certain trait (a determinist conceit). The fact that he goes on to frame this rather ridiculous strawman as properly representing Arminian theology is beyond absurd.

Actual Arminian soteriology teaches that men are by nature in bondage to sin, but God calls men to repentance and faith in Christ by His grace, by which men are able to believe.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace…. (Galatians 1:15)

When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:25-26)

Faith in Christ doesn’t require being smart or wise, but does require that sinners incline their ears at His gracious call and humble themselves under the Spirit’s conviction. Besides being fairly obvious, these realities of Arminian theology are public knowledge and well-defended by many scholars and writers. Yet for some inexplicable reason, Calvinistic apologists persist in their wildly accusatory claims that Arminians must believe they possess more of some innate ability than those who don’t believe.

Nice post.

You would enjoy this video by Jerry Walls, he addresses many of these arguments. It is a little long, but I found Walls to be very entertaining. I think you will find the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daomzm3nyIg

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There are verses that tell us that, but needing them is a bit silly. That's like me claiming there is gravity and you saying, "WHERE IS THE VERSE THAT SAYS THERE IS GRAVITY!?!?! You Calvinists add gravity to the Scriptures!!"

Do you see how ridiculous that is?



Where is the verse that purports that nonsense?




The question, James, is WHY? Why do some will and others NOT will?

You act like the will has no force behind it.

Why do you will to eat supper? Hunger moves you to will to do so.

Things move our will, James. Our will does not exist independently. It does not have it OWN being. It is not SELF-EXISTENT, sir.



Balderdash! Behind volition is STILL the question, why?

Why do some wish to do this and others wish to do that?

The problem with you Arminians, or "non-cals" or whatever you want to call yourselves, is that you ask why only up to the "will of man" and then you immediately STOP and say, "THERE!! That's why!!"

And if anybody asks why one more time you plug your ears and start screaming, "FREE WILL, FREE WILL, FREE WILL!!!" refusing to reason any further.

Therein lies the crux of the argument Luke, and I agree with you.

What is being asked is NOT "Biblical" though, as much as each side would like to claim it were.

You are asking something to the effect of:

WHY? does one "will" one thing and not another.

Unfortunately, the answer is that the Arminian claims that there is no CAUSAL force or reason or answer as to "WHY" a person might choose one thing or another....

but the Calvinist system insists that there are explanatory factors as to "WHY" a person "chooses" one thing or another. (See the notion of "depravity" et. al.)

What that does in the Calvinist System is create a set of "guarantors" of decisions (I will obviously refuse to now call them "free").
But, Arminianism rejects the notion that any set of factors are a guarantor of why someone chooses anything.
Whatever surrounds it, is somewhat ancillary.

As to the answer to the last question

"WHY"??

The answer is.....dum dum dum.........Arminians don't propose an answer to "why".....They don't pre-suppose there IS a "why". Nothing is "guaranteed" as far as a creaturely decision is concerned....it's merely a propositional statement that subject x made decision y in circumstances c....
There IS no answer as to "WHY"?

I'll put it this way:
Arminians assume that IF there is a "WHY"....than the answer was not "free"...it would have been necessesarry by definition or decree.
Whatever the difference is, Luke, unfortunately........it rests upon some Philosphical pre-suppositions, not "Biblical" ones. Anyone who claims that they don't import Philosophical notions INTO their hermeneutic is lying to themselves or ignorant.....

I believe that you know other-wise.

I think some understanding of God's Omniscience is required here:
I divide it into three distinct spectrums for brevity:
1.) (Calvie view) God is Omniscient and knows all things because he decreed them...and there is a causal explanation for every "WHY". And that explanation is generally centered in God's ultimate decree.

2.) (Simple foreknowledge) God is Omniscient inasmuch as he transcends time and has a PERCEPTUAL knowledge [foresight] of all creaturely decisions....

3.) (My view, which is a Molinistic one which is Arminianism plus garlic)

God "foreknows" all things PROPOSITIONALLY . Or, rather....God's "Omniscience" boils down to the fact that God simply believes all true propositions and believes no false ones.
Thus, God's Omniscience is a propositional knowledge (not perceptual, nor strictly decretal) inextricably linked to the necessity of his being.

God's Omniscience is as much a necessary facet of his being as his Aseity is or his Omnipotence.

Omnipotence......is a trait Calvies are right to defend
but,
Molinist/Arms like me view God's Omniscience as EQUALLY interr-laced with God's being, a necessary part of his existence...

God doesn't "perceive" reality (simple Arm foreknowledge) nor does he "decree" it (classic Calvinist foreknowledge)
God, rather, simply......"knows"..propositionally (as a necessary facet of his being) what a creature will do in the future. NOTHING though explains the "why" because...........there IS no "why". If there were a "why" than it wasn't a "free" decision but, rather a "decreed" one (or causally guaranteed)..........and that's Calvinism.

Good to see you ma' brutha' Peace and Love and what-not :1_grouphug:

 

[TexMac]

Otherwise....there would be no notion of "Prevenient Grace" in Arminianism.....but there is. There is such a notion because they know that no one possesses the ability to "choose" to repent and believe without a special intervention of God's "grace".

Yep, seems to me you caught him loading the wrong wagon. :thumbs:

 

[Robert Snow]

Nice post.

You would enjoy this video by Jerry Walls, he addresses many of these arguments. It is a little long, but I found Walls to be very entertaining. I think you will find the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daomzm3nyIg

Thank you for the link, it was great!

 

[Winman]

Thank you for the link, it was great!

Yes, Walls is an excellent speaker. I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, I believe he is Methodist, but he makes valid points.

I would like to see him take on James White, that would be a GREAT debate.

 

[agedman]

I got back late to respond to a post.

But it really needs to be addressed because it is obvious the poster has attempted to belittle without knowing anything about the person he is responding too.

Here is the response to that post, and then I am done with this thread.

You have obviously NEVER read an Arminian statement of Theology...because that is patently false. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT Arminian belief whatsoever....You are obviously, and I am not insulting you here, but simply ignorant of Arminian belief.

Amazing what a person considers what I am or am not ignorant. Strikes as being a rather presumptuous and prideful statement to make when you have absolutely no information to base it upon.

My guess is this (and if you are honest with yourself, you will admit this) your knowledge of what "Arminians" believe comes from Calvinists or other non-Arminians since Arminians reject what you just said on it's face.

Again this is total assumption that is basically without factual merit.

Otherwise....there would be no notion of "Prevenient Grace" in Arminianism.....but there is. There is such a notion because they know that no one possesses the ability to "choose" to repent and believe without a special intervention of God's "grace". It's as integral a part of Arminianism as it is Calvinism.....But, you obviously don't know that.

Again an assumption of what I do and do not know.

Fact is that most free will / free choice folks DO NOT admit to such a notion. Rather, they consider that within themselves they have the freedom of choice, the innate ability to choose. This is born out repeatedly on the BB for years.

I remain unsurprised.

I don't doubt that. At my age, I've seen too much to be surprised by much, too.

Lemme clue you in:
I can directly quote Pelagius himself........Yes, Pelagius personally as denying that statement. (I've read his works and you haven't.....and I'm also quite confident that no Calvinist Polemicist you study has either.)

Really, do you really consider me so ignorant that I haven't read what little Pelagius wrote - very little remained of his work after he was branded a heretic by the way?

The church had not yet become the anti-christ body of a few centuries later. For Pelagius lived a little more than three hundred years after the last apostle died. Jerome (a contemptorary) felt the same way as Augustine (also a contemporary) did about Pelagius and his teaching. He was not condemned by a few crackpots of his day, but by the very theological folks in which the church basically looks upon.

It is important to note that the Romanist church that came out of the true catholic church did and still does embrace some Pelagius teaching that they once condemned.

You need to start learning some things from sources other than other Calvinists who ALSO....have never read an Arminian confession from their own pen. You only know what some Calvinists claim that Arminians believe, and it's obvious. You aren't quoting Arminian Theology, you are quoting what Calvinists say Arminians believe.

This is the way to gather great support for your argument. Make sure you bury the person in what YOU present as that person's knowledge and experiential history.

Also patently false.......Arminians accept "Total Depravity".....but not the assumption of "INABILITY".....a distinction you show yourself utterly incapable of making......It's ignorant, and I want the thousands of people who read this forum to hear me say it:

Your statement is FALSE and bred of ignorance.

THAT is the problem. Pelagius believed and taught (what we have of his anyway) two basic controversial doctrines that continue to this day: 1) That a humankind have the ability to live sinless, and 2) That humankind can free choose to obey the ten commandments. From these teachings come the basic Arminian doctrines.

Both of these are heretical teachings.

Certainly, CAREFUL reading can ascribe that Pelagius recognized that God's grace was instrumental in the processes, but ultimately it all rested upon MAN'S ability, and MAN'S free willed choice without regard to the divine and purposed intervention of God.

NO..........we Don't (the first true thing you've said so far)......
Arminians do NOT believe infants "speak". It's a PSALM dude a PSALM!!!!
I maintain my children are pretty smart.....but, they weren't born "speaking". Did YOUR children come from the womb "speaking"???
Were YOUR children conveying coherent thoughts to you and submitting falsifiable propositions to you when they shot out of the shoot?

Pardon me being a bit alarmed. Are you disqualifying a part of the Scriptures to your own benefit?

I don't know about your children, but MY children spoke from the time they were born. They let us know very often when they needed attention. There are many forms of speaking - actions speak loudly, especially that of the newborn.

In your attempt to prove your view, you now seem to make little of a great psalm. Sad!

Do tell..........
If they did.........their thoughts MUST have been more erudite than the above statement that you just made.
My babies didn't literally "speak"....nor did yours.

Perhaps you just weren't listening. I don't know. I wasn't there. All I can say is mine did. Loudly and often.

Didn't the same Psalmist write this Calvinist proof-text only 7 chapters earlier:
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Can you answer this question for me:
Did David LITERALLY say that children were sinful when they were
CONCEIVED...or only when they were BORN, as you presently propose?

Reading carefully you should have the answer before you!!!!

It says the MOTHER was in sin at the time of conception.

It says the psalmist shape (formation) took place in iniquity.

I am always amazed at the lengths some Arminian folks will take to make the conception sinless and the baby not born as sin filled as any other humankind.

"ALL have sinned" didn't exclude newborns.

Mind you.......I'm pretty sure that your answer to the above question will be inextricably linked to your notion of "person-hood" and your beliefs about abortion....
Because, if we take you "LITERALLY" as you demand, than obviously David was wrong about whether they are sinners from "conception" or whether they are only sinners from "birth". Not to be-labor biology.........but, they aren't precisely the same thing. (Well, not LITERALLY anyway) :laugh:

Perhaps in your quest to impose your own thinking, you drag other matters into the discussion. But to answer your question is not worthy at this time. Mind you - not saying your ignorant, or need further reading experience, but just this isn't the discussion point.

Here's a fundamental hint:
You only derive doctrinal truths from poetic and wisdom literature which is previously known or taught in NON-POETIC literature........

Aren't you the one who thinks that (from another thread) flagellation with thorn-branches also LITERALLY washes away sin as well?

NO.....he washes it clean with his own blood first DUH ......Tell us Arminians something ELSE we don't already know. So far you ar 0 for 3 on new information.

I can only assume you are upset and mixing topics from other discussion threads and have lost the focus of this one. I have made no such statement(s).

Almost a soaring bit of rhetoric.......however, it's nothing more than a piecing together of 3 separate and un-related Biblical passages which have little or nothing to do with your statement as a whole and little to do with one another.
This piecemeal is equally as ingenius and relevant as if I'd rejoindered your post with saying:
"Whosever believeth" and "whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" and "why would ye DIE oh, Israel?"..........and pretended that all three statements (which are also Biblical quotes) were interrelated.

My advice to others I extend to you:
Quit while you're behind.

You can take what you like, and respond as you desire to any of my posts. That isn't the question.

The point I was making at the last was basic. Does God get invited or does He do the inviting? Does God inhabit the old nature by acknowledging the ability of that sinful creature to freely call upon Him?

You didn't (or couldn't) rationally reasonably respond. I don't know which.

Perhaps if you spent less time in belittle dribble, you might have brought more insight to the campaign. As it was - I doubt your superior knowledge is worthy of my poor ignorant scribble.

THAT ACH is Checkmate!

 

[Herald]

I'm not Arminian because I believe once saved always saved, and have a few disagreements on some of their other points.

But yes, I do believe free will in that once you make a decision to turn to Christ the Holy Spirit does the work of justification when you call on Christ to save you. The free will does not detract from God's sovereignty because it is still part of His design for salvation. You are never getting saved "of yourselves".

Where Calvinism puts the cart before the horse is that since faith is what leads to salvation, then what comes first, the faith or the salvation? In Calvinism, God must "quicken" you and save you first, but then that means salvation precedes faith.

This is a misunderstanding of Reformed soteriology. The Bible teaches a distinct order of salvation (although the sequence of events is so quick that they appear almost simultaneous). Regeneration produces faith which leads to justification. I'm vacationing right now so I don't have time to go into the intricacies of Reformed soteriology, but what I wrote about the order of salvation is it in a nutshell.

 

[Winman]

I don't know about your children, but MY children spoke from the time they were born. They let us know very often when they needed attention. There are many forms of speaking - actions speak loudly, especially that of the newborn.

What a joke! Your children were born speaking lies? How did you know they were lying, do you speak gobbilty-goop?

And if you take verse 3 as literal, do you take the following verses literally as well?

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

Were your children born poisonous like an adder shown in verse 4? My, that would make breast feeding rather dangerous don't you think? :laugh:

Were your children born with a mouthful of great teeth like a young lion's as shown in verse 6? That would be rather startling to see!

Did they melt like snails as shown in verse 8? Better keep salt away from them!

This shows how ridiculous this view is. Psalm 58 is obvious exaggeration and should not be taken literally. To form doctrine from this Psalm is pure foolishness, that was not the purpose of this Psalm.

And what language did your children speak when they truly began to speak? Mine spoke English, just as their mother and father spoke. All children speak the language of their parents. You don't have a child with English speaking parents speak Spanish, or any other language. Therefore it is obvious children learn language and the ability to speak from hearing their parents and siblings around them. This is also where they hear lies and LEARN to lie.

Amazing the nonsense you have to endure from seemingly intelligent people.

 

[Van]

12 pages of running amok.

What do Calvinists find offensive about non Calvinist doctrine?

Calvinists believe in Total Spiritual Inability, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates unregenerates seek God and heaven, they hate it. Matthew 23:13.

Calvinists believe in Unconditional Election, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, they hate it. 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Calvinists believe in Limited Atonement, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, they hate it. 1 Timothy 2:6

Calvinists believe in Irresistible Grace, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates unregenerate men can understand the milk of the gospel, they hate it. 1 Corinthians 3:1

But most of all they hate discussing the faults of Calvinism, and so constantly seek to discuss the faults of Arminianism.

 

[Aaron]

The Scriptures scream un-equivocally that there is some "action" one must take in order to solidify or (even for a Calvinist) know one's status as "elect". No one (for instance) who fails to repent and believe is qualified as "saved" or "elect" in the Calvinist system either, Aaron.

Wow. Never heard that one before. As the board is rife with threads discounting that myth, I feel no need to respond.

What role did you play in your first birth?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Nice post.

You would enjoy this video by Jerry Walls, he addresses many of these arguments. It is a little long, but I found Walls to be very entertaining. I think you will find the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daomzm3nyIg

This is an amazing refutation of the core of Calvinism and-by proxy-highlights the argument I was developing about Calvin and infant baptism and some of his other beliefs which is the argument for uniformity in beliefs (I'll explain in a minute).

If Calvinists took a "serious" look at how Walls explains the Calvinist Conundrum, no Calvinism could be consistently honest with their belief system.

Now on to my theory about the uniformity of belief. According to Calvinist determinism God could establish everyone's belief system if He wanted to. That much must be admitted by the honest Calvinist. Therefore:

THE CALVINIST UNIFORMITY CONUNDRUM

1. God can determine belief systems and cause uniformity among believers if He wanted to.

2. God wants uniformity among believers. Philippians 2:2-5

3. God determines all things, and God especially determines all things that He wants.

4. Therefore all belief systems of the elect should be uniform and all Calvinists of one mind.

Subjectively, the arrogance of the Calvinists proves that they themselves believe that all belief systems should be uniform. The fact that they consistently condescend to anyone that does not agree with is proof of that. Calvinists themselves argue for uniformity of belief.

If a Calvinist was honest with his theology, he would say that all who disagree with him are not saved. After all, if "Calvinism IS the gospel" then anyone who disagrees with it is not saved. Mark 1:15 ("Repent and believe the gospel")

So even in a Calvinists own attempt to convince others of their position, if the Calvinist wholeheartedly believes he is right, then he is effectually arguing that uniformity of beliefs are predetermined. If the Calvinist does not admit this, he would have to admit there's a possibility that he could be wrong, but if there is a possibility he could be wrong, then that would cast doubt on his election, because 1 Peter 1:4 says to make your calling and election SURE.

Not all Calvinists are uniform. Not all Reformers are uniform. Reformers won't readily admit they are Calvinists and Calvinists won'd admit they are Augustinians.

The lack of uniformity in the belief system of Calvinism according to Calvinist determinism destroys the entire system. The Calvinist must either admit that God can NOT determine all things, or that God does not WANT to detemine all things, or that He does NOT determine all things to escape the conundrum.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is an amazing refutation of the core of Calvinism and-by proxy-highlights the argument I was developing about Calvin and infant baptism and some of his other beliefs which is the argument for uniformity in beliefs (I'll explain in a minute).

If Calvinists took a "serious" look at how Walls explains the Calvinist Conundrum, no Calvinism could be consistently honest with their belief system.

Now on to my theory about the uniformity of belief. According to Calvinist determinism God could establish everyone's belief system if He wanted to. That much must be admitted by the honest Calvinist. Therefore:

THE CALVINIST UNIFORMITY CONUNDRUM

1. God can determine belief systems and cause uniformity among believers if He wanted to.

2. God wants uniformity among believers. Philippians 2:2-5

3. God determines all things, and God especially determines all things that He wants.

4. Therefore all belief systems of the elect should be uniform and all Calvinists of one mind.

Subjectively, the arrogance of the Calvinists proves that they themselves believe that all belief systems should be uniform. The fact that they consistently condescend to anyone that does not agree with is proof of that. Calvinists themselves argue for uniformity of belief.

If a Calvinist was honest with his theology, he would say that all who disagree with him are not saved. After all, if "Calvinism IS the gospel" then anyone who disagrees with it is not saved. Mark 1:15 ("Repent and believe the gospel")

So even in a Calvinists own attempt to convince others of their position, if the Calvinist wholeheartedly believes he is right, then he is effectually arguing that uniformity of beliefs are predetermined. If the Calvinist does not admit this, he would have to admit there's a possibility that he could be wrong, but if there is a possibility he could be wrong, then that would cast doubt on his election, because 1 Peter 1:4 says to make your calling and election SURE.

Not all Calvinists are uniform. Not all Reformers are uniform. Reformers won't readily admit they are Calvinists and Calvinists won'd admit they are Augustinians.

The lack of uniformity in the belief system of Calvinism according to Calvinist determinism destroys the entire system. The Calvinist must either admit that God can NOT determine all things, or that God does not WANT to detemine all things, or that He does NOT determine all things to escape the conundrum.

Well put. Some have exposed that conflict in Calvinism before. God would (if the determinist be correct) essentially be constantly debating by proxy with himself at any time there is disagreement about Calvinism. If Calvinism is true, than God is consistently playing a Theological Chess match with himself.......in fact, this thread would be that very thing. God, by proxy, debating Theology with himself. It's absurd.
The reality of the situation is as you explained it here:

or that He does NOT determine

God happens to be Omnipotent enough and Sovereign enough to choose whether he does or does not WANT to causally determine all things. And he has simply chosen not to. Obviously, he COULD....but, he can choose not to if he so pleases. And he has elected not to.