Dr. James Dobson Supports Free Choice (arminianism): "God does not force people to accept Him"

I'm sure you are aware that there has been a debate going on for centuries, often referred to as the Calvinistic/Armenian debate, with Scriptures to back up both sides of the argument.

Anyway, in light of your belief, following is a message I have received from Dr. James Dobson/Focus on the Family. Please advise if this viewpoint is the same viewpoint you hold to.

You asked about Dr. Dobson's beliefs regarding eternal security. He holds to the classic Armenian view -- that is, he believes God never violates the free will of the individual. Dr. Dobson feels that God does not force people to accept Him, nor will He lock them into an earlier commitment if they subsequently choose deliberately and willfully to disobey His known will.

But while Dr. Dobson does not affirm the doctrine of eternal security, he is at the same time confident that our loving God will not banish us from fellowship with Him for our mistakes, human frailties, faults, and failings. God's forgiveness for sin is one of the foundation stones of the gospel message. Still, this does not change Dr. Dobson's conviction that the choice is ultimately ours. He believes it is possible for an individual to remove himself from the grace of God, and exit by the door through which he originally entered -- the will.

This means that, in Dr. Dobson's view, it is possible for a born-again Christian to shake his fist in God's face and say in essence, "I will have my own way!" When that occurs, "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." This scripture, which is quoted below in its larger context, is one of at least fifty references that may be cited in support of the theological perspective to which Dr. Dobson ascribes:

*For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.* Heb. 10:26-31 KJV

Dr. Dobson realizes many good Christians have drawn different conclusions regarding this issue. He feels it is an honest difference in understanding on the part of equally committed people who are seeking the truth through imperfect eyes. "We see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (I Cor. 13:12)

We would emphasize the following points. The Bible teaches very clearly that it is possible to fall from faith (1 Corinthians 10:12). It also assures us that God will protect us from falling (1 Corinthians 10:13). The first passage warns us when we are complacent. The second comforts us when we are troubled. Among the other passages that deal with this are Matthew 13:18-23, Hebrews 10:26, and John 10:27-29.

We would, therefore, agree with the basic points which Dr. Dobson makes about the possibility of falling from faith but not with some of the other aspects of his answer. The Armenian view held by Dobson affirms that our free will cooperates in our conversion to Christ. We believe that our natural will resists God, and our will only cooperates with the Holy Spirit after conversion. We do not by nature have a free will to make a decision for Christ. We do not by nature have the freedom to choose for Christ. We do have the freedom to chose against him. From our perspective then, Dobson's answer is half right.

"I did! You have the direct quote from his work stating that the Spirit,the word and the will all three work together."

No, Schaff quoted Melanchthon directly, you did not. You have no clue of the context of these comments. Actually, you do since I've already informed you several times that Schaff's quotation from the Loci is out of context. But -suprise suprise- you don't listen very well.

For the umpteenth time, the Loci is not where the controversy arose. Melanchthon was talking about the life of the CURRENT believer. This is simply basic historical fact, ftd.

Now, if you could find an actual ~direct~ quote of Melanchthon -in context- in which he takes an Arminianesque position.... (I won't hold my breath) ;)

"You have been exposed for the fraud that you are!"

LOL! Why don't you ask Grams to send you the info he read in the introduction to the 1555 English translation of the 'Common Places' -that is if he still has the book checked out. We'll see if he's willing to admit it.

He can look here: xxxvii, xl

(Goodness, I had begged him to provide a quote from Melanchthon to back up his charge that Melanchthon dumped monergism and predestination -and he had works of Melanchthon directly in front of him. He never did. Why do you think that is?)

Jean

I did! You have the direct quote from his work stating that the Spirit,the word and the will all three work together." No, Schaff quoted Melanchthon directly, you did not. You have no clue of the context of these comments. Actually, you do since I've already informed you several times that Schaff's quotation from the Loci is out of context. But -suprise suprise- you don't listen very well.

The context look fine to me. He gave the Latin footnote showing that Melanchthon was speaking about salvation, and the responsibility of the human will in it.

For the umpteenth time, the Loci is not where the controversy arose. Melanchthon was talking about the life of the CURRENT believer. This is simply basic historical fact, ftd.

He is? Not according to the footnotes I saw! He was talking about the grace of God and the responsibilty to say yes to grace and not to resist it. That is right from the Loci.

Now, if you could find an actual ~direct~ quote of Melanchthon -in context- in which he takes an Arminianesque position.... (I won't hold my breath) ;)

Already did! Did you see the quote from the Loci? It is even clear enough for your feeble mind to grasp!

"You have been exposed for the fraud that you are!" (Goodness, I had begged him to provide a quote from Melanchthon to back up his charge that Melanchthon dumped monergism and predestination -and he had works of Melanchthon directly in front of him. He never did. Why do you think that is?)

Jean, you are a liar and a fraud. I gave you the Latin quote from the Loci stating that Melanchthon had accepted the human will as having the ability to say no to the grace of God!

I gave you four historians who stated that Melancthon had gone synergistic, including a Calvinist one.

That Melanchthon moved away from Predestination is an historical fact.

By the way, are you talking to yourself? What is this speaking in the third person?

Do not bother me with anymore of your lame posts.

You provided no counter information, just alot of double-talking nonsense.

"The context look fine to me. He gave the Latin footnote showing that Melanchthon was speaking about salvation, and the responsibility of the human will in it."

???? How do you even know what the context is???? You don't even have a copy of Melanchthon's Loci in front of you. You are simply taking Schaff's word for it. You have no clue what the actual context is. In the Loci passage Schaff cites, Melanchthon is talking about the life of a current believer!!!! Schaff was wrong! The controversy is not from the Loci. How many times do I have to say this???? Sheesh!

I'm trying to help you out here, ftd. The controversy comes not from the Loci (I'm repeating myself hoping it will sink in to you.) The controversy comes from his Examen Ordinandorum of 1554. He clarified the misconceptions in correspondence to Duke John Albert of Magdeburg in February of 1557. Now, do you think I'm making these facts up? Do you think I'm simply pulling them out of thin air??? Are you that ignorant? -perhaps

"He is? Not according to the footnotes I saw! He was talking about the grace of God and the responsibilty to say yes to grace and not to resist it. That is right from the Loci."

So you saw a small, out of context quotation of Melanchthon's Loci from Schaff's entry in a historical encyclopedia. Is this how you do all your research??? Now if you had a copy of the Loci in front of you, you could read the actual quote. You would then realize that Melanchthon was speaking about the grace of God given to someone who already was a believer!!!! How many times do I have to say this??? Do I have to do all your homework for you?

"Jean, you are a liar and a fraud. I gave you the Latin quote from the Loci stating that Melanchthon had accepted the human will as having the ability to say no to the grace of God! "

You did not quote the Loci. You quoted Schaff who gave a small quotation from the Loci. This does not give you context. This insists you must take Schaff's word for it. You simply do not know for yourself. Quit mis-representing your facts. It does not bode well for you.

Now, if I am a liar and a fraud, I think Grams could demonstrate that pretty easily. Just have him post the context of the quotation Schaff cites. It would be as simple as that. Oh, and while you are at it, have him post the information he read in the introduction to his Loci copy he checked out of the library (xxxvii, xl). He could probably confirm for you whether or not I am a liar and a fraud. It should be pretty simple for him to do. ;)

"That Melanchthon moved away from Predestination is an historical fact."

A fact in error.

"By the way, are you talking to yourself? What is this speaking in the third person?"

??????? You're making more and more sense all the time, LOL!

"Do not bother me with anymore of your lame posts."

If your going to make false claims, I'm going to call you on it. You can't prove it from Melanchthon himself, so you run away?

"You provided no counter information, just alot of double-talking nonsense. "

No, I ~have~ given you information. I have even attempted to help you find the actual source of the controversy to no avail. I have not stated explicitly where my information has come from, that is true. I'm simply not going to do your homework for you. You have attempted to prove Melanchthon was a synergist from secondary sources -how elementary. But, I've come to expect this from you.

Jean

The context look fine to me. He gave the Latin footnote showing that Melanchthon was speaking about salvation, and the responsibility of the human will in it." ???? How do you even know what the context is???? You don't even have a copy of Melanchthon's Loci in front of you. You are simply taking Schaff's word for it. You have no clue what the actual context is. In the Loci passage Schaff cites, Melanchthon is talking about the life of a current believer!!!! Schaff was wrong! The controversy is not from the Loci. How many times do I have to say this???? Sheesh!

How many times do you have to say it? You do not have to say it all, you have to show it! Moreover, the footnote is far more extensive then I have cited. As noted, in a an earlier post, Melanchthon also cites Chrysostom 'God draws the willing'

I'm trying to help you out here, ftd. The controversy comes not from the Loci (I'm repeating myself hoping it will sink in to you.) The controversy comes from his Examen Ordinandorum of 1554. He clarified the misconceptions in correspondence to Duke John Albert of Magdeburg in February of 1557. Now, do you think I'm making these facts up? Do you think I'm simply pulling them out of thin air??? Are you that ignorant? -perhaps

Well, perhaps you might actually show them instead of just stating them as if we are suppose to believe them because you said they are true.

Since there are many attacks on him regarding the statement, it is likely that he had to clarify that he was not advocating a works salvation, but only that works showed one was saved.

Now, if this letter proves that Melanchthon had not rejected Calvinistic Predestination, you need to have it more widely disputed since even your own historians have stated that Melanchthon went the 'semi-pelagian' route.

"He is? Not according to the footnotes I saw! He was talking about the grace of God and the responsibilty to say yes to grace and not to resist it. That is right from the Loci." So you saw a small, out of context quotation of Melanchthon's Loci from Schaff's entry in a historical encyclopedia. Is this how you do all your research??? Now if you had a copy of the Loci in front of you, you could read the actual quote. You would then realize that Melanchthon was speaking about the grace of God given to someone who already was a believer!!!! How many times do I have to say this??? Do I have to do all your homework for you?

Well, I have four historians saying the same thing,(including Boettner) I have extensive footnotes. I am not citing from an encycolopedia, but from the works themselves (Creeds of Christiandom, History of the Christian Church) Moreover, the footnoted quoted from the 1548 edition has to do with Saul and David. Now, was Saul a believer? Melanchthon asks the question why was Saul cast aside and David received, and he answers that David had faith and this is illustrated in the joining of the three, Word of God, the Spirit of God and the will of man.

Moreover, I do not know of many Calvinists who state that even a regenerated believer can resist the will of God!

That is the 'two-natured' view held by Chafer and is not accepted by the more orthodox Calvinists.

"Jean, you are a liar and a fraud. I gave you the Latin quote from the Loci stating that Melanchthon had accepted the human will as having the ability to say no to the grace of God! " You did not quote the Loci. You quoted Schaff who gave a small quotation from the Loci. This does not give you context. This insists you must take Schaff's word for it. You simply do not know for yourself. Quit mis-representing your facts. It does not bode well for you.

I quoted from 4 secondary sources, including a Calvinist one, and from a primary source in a footnote.

You have given me not one fact, just conjecture and opinion.

Who the heck is 'grams'? I have a copy of the Loci on order. What would the introduction have to do with what Melanchthen actually wrote!

"That Melanchthon moved away from Predestination is an historical fact." A fact in error. "By the way, are you talking to yourself? What is this speaking in the third person?" ??????? You're making more and more sense all the time, LOL! "Do not bother me with anymore of your lame posts." If your going to make false claims, I'm going to call you on it. You can't prove it from Melanchthon himself, so you run away? "You provided no counter information, just alot of double-talking nonsense. " No, I ~have~ given you information. I have even attempted to help you find the actual source of the controversy to no avail. I have not stated explicitly where my information has come from, that is true. I'm simply not going to do your homework for you. You have attempted to prove Melanchthon was a synergist from secondary sources -how elementary. But, I've come to expect this from you.

You are a bunch of hot air! You have not provided a single fact, just disagreements with the facts that I have provided. Melanchthon's emphasis on the will of man, both in salvation and in his walk puts him outside the Calvinistic camp.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.