Unconditional Election

[thatbrian]

But even Arminius believed that person only believed because of the Grace of God enabling that belief.

Again, this thread is discussing ELECTION. In election, the Arminian does not credit God's grace, but His foreknowledge of their choice as the deciding factor. God's grace comes in afterward, in their explanation, to allow the sinner to believe, but in ELECTION, grace is not the cause.

 

[thatbrian]

This is a decent working definition of the Arminian position on election:

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election, therefore, was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.​

 

[JonC]

We are discussing Election here. not salvation.

The Arminian position is that God elected the Arminian because the Arminian acted first, and that action was his own. That very action is what makes him saved while the next man is not.

In terms of election:


That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

 

[JonC]

I've heard it said that C.H. Spurgeon was the best at dealing with human will and God's will in salvation. I think when it comes to predestination in salvation, probably the most astute reasoning I've encountered is Johnathan Edward's position. I'd post it here and save some the work, but the work is half the fun...

 

[Reformed]

But even Arminius believed that person only believed because of the Grace of God enabling that belief.

More succinctly, Arminius believed in prevenient grace; that all human beings possess enough God-given faith to believe the Gospel message. His followers expanded upon his views. The problem with Arminius' own beliefs is that they undermined the totality of the Reformed faith. If man possesses even a modicum of faith, then he is really not dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). It also lends itself to a Synergistic view of salvation. If the sinner is not completely dead in sin, then they have some claim on their ability to believe. That is joyous news to the Synergist, but not faithful to scripture. It is for that reason that Amyaldrians (so-called 4 pointers) were rejected as being part of the continental Reformers at the Synod of Dordt. When they say that are in the Reformed tradition, that only carries until Dordt where any such claim was rejected.

 

[Don]

More succinctly, Arminius believed in prevenient grace; that all human beings possess enough God-given faith to believe the Gospel message.

Not quite accurate. Arminius wrote:
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that is needful that he be born again of God on Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good.

He never believed that "all" human beings had such grace.

 

[Reformed]

Not quite accurate. Arminius wrote:
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that is needful that he be born again of God on Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good.

He never believed that "all" human beings had such grace.

Don, what Arminius wrote does not negate the consequences of his theology. I will go into it in more detail later, but he was synergistic in his soteriological views.

 

[Don]

Don, what Arminius wrote does not negate the consequences of his theology. I will go into it in more detail later, but he was synergistic in his soteriological views.

Do you believe Calvin should be held responsible for hyper-calvinists?

 

[Reformed]

Don, what Arminius wrote does not negate the consequences of his theology. I will go into it in more detail later, but he was synergistic in his soteriological views.

Don,

Arminius' most quoted statement on prevenient grace is, "Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace". He continues, "This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperates lest we will in vain." So, yes, Arminius believed in a grace that God offers all creatures and it is up to man's free will to reach out and take of that grace.

 

[Reformed]

Do you believe Calvin should be held responsible for hyper-calvinists?

First, I have no idea what a true hyper-Calvinist is since the term is defined in the eye of the beholder.

Second, I think what you are trying to get at is should Arminius be tainted by the extremes of his followers? The answer to this question is no, he should not. But as previously stated, Arminius' belief in prevenient grace and free will is enough to place him squarely in the Synergist camp. Whatever else the Remonstrants concocted is superfluous.

 

[Don]

Don,

Arminius' most quoted statement on prevenient grace is, "Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace". He continues, "This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperates lest we will in vain." So, yes, Arminius believed in a grace that God offers all creatures and it is up to man's free will to reach out and take of that grace.

Arminius also wrote:
But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

 

[Don]

First, I have no idea what a true hyper-Calvinist is since the term is defined in the eye of the beholder.

We've had one or two on this board over the years, though I can think of none currently visiting us.

Second, I think what you are trying to get at is should Arminius be tainted by the extremes of his followers? The answer to this question is no, he should not.

Exactly.

But as previously stated, Arminius' belief in prevenient grace and free will is enough to place him squarely in the Synergist camp. Whatever else the Remonstrants concocted is superfluous.

And as we continue to share passages of Arminius' writings, we may possibly see differently. Or I may concede. But it will be fun and interesting to do so in a civil manner.

 

[thatbrian]

I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

The pope could have spoken those words.

The problem with the "grace" of Arminius is that it falls far short of being the grace we see demonstrated by God, which does not just "aid" us.

 

[robycop3]

I believe God chooses some for election, such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, & the apostles, including Paul. But even they had a choice. For instance, Moses coulds refused God at the burning bush, to his eternal sorrow, & Paul coulda refused Jesus on the road to Damascus.

But I do NOT believe God has, or does, condemn anyone to hell without any chance for redemption. Remember, Scripture says He is NOT WILLING that ANY should perish.

 

[thatbrian]

I believe God chooses some for election, such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, & the apostles, including Paul. But even they had a choice. For instance, Moses coulds refused God at the burning bush, to his eternal sorrow, & Paul coulda refused Jesus on the road to Damascus.

But I do NOT believe God has, or does, condemn anyone to hell without any chance for redemption. Remember, Scripture says He is NOT WILLING that ANY should perish.

*** Please read the OP, and address it, or post in another thread that interests you.

 

[FollowTheWay]

JonC, I have been saying over and over again that Arminianism, as it originally was presented, was not the revisionist "Arminianism" we see today.

James Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED minister and theologian, His only disagreement was with Unconditional Election. He believed election was conditioned on God's foreknowledge that the person would one day believe, and that God elected him on the basis of His knowledge of that eventual belief.

But even Arminius believed that person only believed because of the Grace of God enabling that belief.

I agree with you on this one. The whole argument concerning election between Calvinists and Arminians is between the difference between predestination and foreknowledge. I myself consider this to be an unknowable mystery to us. What difference does it make? We should therefore "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved." With Arminius and Calvin I believe in the perseverance of the saints. Only those who persevere until the end shall be saved. This whole controversy that has been waged for hundreds of years has no merit and has only served to divide Christians.

 

[Don]

The pope could have spoken those words.

The problem with the "grace" of Arminius is that it falls far short of being the grace we see demonstrated by God, which does not just "aid" us.

In order to make that statement, which you have NOT shown to reflect Arminius' writings, you must necessarily ignore the words that immediately preceeded what you chose to focus on:

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself....but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit....When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation....

 

[TCassidy]

Only those who persevere until the end shall be saved.

I think that is backwards. The saved will persevere until the end.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

 

[Mr. Davis]

Don said: ↑
I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace. The pope could have spoken those words.

Brian said:
The problem with the "grace" of Arminius is that it falls far short of being the grace we see demonstrated by God, which does not just "aid" us.
-------------
Didn't Arminius' position come from his embracing elements of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian teachings?

 

[Don]

Don said: ↑
I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace. The pope could have spoken those words.

Brian said:
The problem with the "grace" of Arminius is that it falls far short of being the grace we see demonstrated by God, which does not just "aid" us.
-------------
Didn't Arminius' position come from his embracing elements of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian teachings?

I think if you'll look into it further, you'll find that Arminius emphatically denounced and repudiated pelagianism.