Posted on 05/13/2002 10:08:33 PM PDT by drstevej
Summary Evaluation of Arminian Theology
Arminianism stresses a number of important features. The emphasis on man’s responsibility is surely a biblical factor: man must believe to be saved (John 3:16; Acts 16:31, etc.). If man refuses to believe, he is lost (John 5:40; 7:17). Arminianism’s emphasis on the universality of the atonement is also biblical (1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:2).
Several features within Arminianism should be evaluated.
(1) Arminianism denies the imputation of sin; no one is condemned eternally because of original sin. Man is condemned because of his own sins. This appears at variance with Romans 5:12–21.
(2) Though variously interpreted, Arminians generally teach that the effects of the Fall were erased through prevenient grace bestowed on all men, enabling individuals to cooperate with God in salvation. There is, however, no clear indication of this kind of prevenient grace in Scripture.
(3) Arminians teach that the Fall did not destroy man’s free will; furthermore, they teach that prevenient grace moves upon the heart of the unbeliever, enabling him to cooperate with God in salvation by an act of the will. While it is true that man must bear responsibility in responding to the gospel (John 5:40), man’s will has been affected because of the Fall (Rom. 3:11–12; Eph. 2:1); man needs God’s grace in order to be saved (Eph. 2:8; Acts 13:48; 16:14).
(4) Arminians relate predestination to God’s foreknowledge of man’s actions. They stress that God knew beforehand who would believe, and He elected those. In Arminianism, election and predestination are conditioned by faith. The word foreknowledge (Gk. prognosis), however, is basically equivalent to election (cf. Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20). The data of God’s foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information.
(5) Arminianism stresses human participation and responsibility in salvation: recognition of sin, turning from sin, repentance, confession, and faith. For Arminianism, repentance involves change of actions, forsaking sins, whereas the biblical word repentance (Gk. metanoia) means “change of mind.” Although the stress on human responsibilities is significant, if it involves multiple conditions for salvation, this stress becomes a serious matter because the purity of salvation-by-grace-alone is then at stake. The sole condition of salvation stressed in scores of Scriptures is faith in Christ (John 3:16, 36; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9, etc.).
(6) Arminianism teaches that believers may lose their salvation because the human will remains free and so may rescind its earlier faith in Christ by choosing sin. Frequently this view is based on controversial passages like Hebrews 6:4–6 and 2 Peter 2:20–22. The clear emphasis of Scripture, however, is that the believer has eternal life as a present possession (John 3:16; 1 John 5:11–13) and is kept secure by Christ (John 10:28) because of what He has done (Rom. 5:1; 8:1).
Yes you do have that choice and so do I ... The problem as I see it is that "Calvinism" has gotten bad press:>)
The problem with the world is not too little free will but to much:>)
JM none of us has a toally free will..our wills all work freely withing a given set of choices
What kind of choice to we have if God already knows your choice? Do you really think you have absolute free choice now?
Did you select your parents, the place of your birth? Your race or sex? Your intellect? Your parents financial situation? Our live choices are limited by the circumstances of our birth..If you had been born in the bush in africa you would not be posting on FR right now most likely..
God made those choices for you. And even now your choices are not without restrictions . You chose within a certain set of choices.
Your lifes choices have been restricted by God's decisions before you were born..Do you think a God that carefully crafted your life would have no care for your eternity? He knows how many hairs you will loose today..He knows because He has fashioned you.....to His good pleasure When you hop in your car, why are you given the choice to go anywhere, or to just sit there? Sure God knows what you would do, but why should you have a choice? God is giving us choices for what purpose?
We all have free choice..I never choose green beans..I hate them..that is a free choice..but sometimes we have a left over so it choses me:>)))
We all have free choice JM..but it is not without bounds..If you jump from a 100 story building you can not change your mind at the 50th floor..the law of gravity takes precedent..you go smush....
You can get in your car and choose where to go..but your choice is limited by the time you have, the gas in the tank or the limit on your credit card.....God does know the woman he made JM....He crafted you quite carefully.....he knows your personality and your strengths and your weakness......in effect you were created to make certain choices..
Have you ever seen the Identical twin study where they examine two men separated at birth..both love firefighting..One has it as a job..the other is a manner of a volunteer unit..they both drive the same car..had the same IQ's and have the same educational level....both of their wives are named Jean...both wives are blondes and both men have the same number of children.
The world will call that genetics..an accident of birth...I say God knew them before they were born and he created them in such a way that they would have make choices..They do choose what they want..but God has governed what they want before they were ever born
The problem is that because of the fall men do not really want God..they will not choose God..
Men love darkness more than the light
The grace of God makes man born again..it makes him the perfect creation that God had planned him to be before the fall.....once the man is born again his desires change and he now not only can choose God ,but he desires to choose God..
My friend, I think you do not understand exactly what Calvinists actually teach. It is the Calvinist position that whatever good that is in you comes from God and any evil in you is your own responsibility. They also are quite blunt in stating that God has predestined each person to either eternal life or eternal damnation. What's worse is that if you are predestinated to go to Heaven it is only by God's grace, but if you are predestined to Hell it is entirely your own fault.
I would guess that you may very well conclude that this reasoning makes absolutely no sense, and you would be correct; but it is the Calvinist position. I am close to concluding that you only think you are a Calvinist. Not to worry, most self-proclaimed Calvinists don't know Calvinism very well either. Those that do seem to outCalvin Calvin himself. Personally I'd rather be known simply as a Christian and forget other labels which contribute nothing to the spreading of the Gospel.
If you really are interested in what Calvinism is from the viewpoint of one of the most pre-emminent Calvinists of the second half of the 20th century, read Edwin Palmer's The Five Points of Calvinism which you should be able to find in any large book store. If not, FReepmail me and I will send you one of my copies at no charge. YOu won't believe what you will read.
Eithor God is God or man is God connect...which is it?
To say that a man cannot comprehend such a basic logical situation would also require that one admit that Calvinists may be wrong as well, wouldn't it?
A Calvinist will generally admit that predestination does not make logical sense, but claim that in spite of the illogic, they believe it anyway. You think I am kidding? I've had them admit it on Free Republic and can cite from Calvinist literature such statements. Even Calvin had problems with conclusions regarding predestination; I've read his Institutes. Is Calvin God, or is God God?
It seems rather strange that Calvinists will admit that their position on predestination does not make logical sense but accept it without question and at the same time berate those whose reasoning makes more logical sense. It is almost as if they think that a believe in something that makes no logical sense from a human point of view is superior to one that does. That being the case, how can they claim that their positions are superior when they are really only their attempts to explain salvation and its operation. In a way, some Calvinists are using the same logic as Mormons do to explain the God-man relationship. Their explanation makes no logical sense, but insist one accept it based on a mere feeling. The operational logic, or lack thereof, is the same, although I certainly think Calvinism falls within the mainstream of Christian thought while Mormonism certainly does not. The absence of logic does not make a belief more valid or true.
Not true. Do you not understand "Natural Law"? I would suggest you read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and you will see that you statement cannot stand up to a close examination. Man is born with a knowledge of right and wrong placed there by God. It is part of a person's soul and is what makes man different from the rest of God's creation. Did not Adam know right from wrong, and yet chose to disobey. Certainly you are no going to say that God predestined Adam to sin, for to do so you would have to admit that God was responsible for Adam's sin. Why would God create man with a nature that would permit him to choose to sin? The answer is obvious. Without a free will, there can be no love relationship, and isn't that the reason God created man?
I see I really can't keep to an entirely philosophical train of thought here. I'll put it this way. Romans 8:29 says, "Those whom he has foreknown, them he has predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, and those whom he has predestinated he has also called, and those whom he has called he has also justified, and those whom he has justified he has also sanctified, and those whom he has sanctified he has also glorified." Now, either the logical order is that "God pre-plans," and what God "pre-plans" on happening, will happen, will be so, is destined or predestined; or the logical order is that God foreknows, and based upon that foreknowledge, he says it will be thus and so as a result of what he foreknows about external but derivative sources. To put this more into the Arminianism v. Calvinism debate, it's this. Calvinism says, God pre-plans who will be saved and who won't; what he has pre-planned, he will make so, e.g., God pre-plans that there will be a certain number of individuals that he says will be saved, and he makes it so by predestining that those people will be saved, and none other than they.
Arminianism says, God foreknows who will cooperate with the grace that he offers, and he predestines them to be saved.
I see no essential difference with the previous. We could say that 'if foreknowledge means to pre-plan that someone will meet a condition, then predestination is conditional', whatever that means.
The difference is whether 'foreknow' means to know beforehand how external and derivative beings, us, will react to God, or whether 'foreknow' means that God has planned things regardless of outside and derivative beings' reactions, in essence, 'pre-planning.'
Does that help any?
C, based on your above statement I must conclude that you do not believe in the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity -it is completely illogical -every Calvinist will admit that to you. Logically 'God' can only be one or he can only be 'three' -not 'three-in-one/one-in-three'.
C, is God subject to man's logic? Is God bound by logic? Or is God sovereign over absolutely everything -every natural, scientific, mathematical, logical law you can think of? (i.e. because something is not logical to us -creation out of nothing, the trinity- does not make it wrong or false.)
Jean
No, 'foreknow' (proginosko) simply means to 'know before' (oh, and 'foreordain' in 1 Peter 1:20).
You have yet to answer my question from before:
What does Romans 8:29 say God 'foreknows'? Men? or Men's actions/thoughts?
Jean
'immediacy' itself is a function of time, therefore not applicable. The best we can do is utilize our limited language (it can't describe aspects outside of time) and our limited understanding (the same reason) and accept the concepts that the Scriptures reveal to us with the limited language that it utilizes.
Jean
Man is evil..God is the restraining force that keeps man from being as evil as he could be connect..
It is God's general grace that restrains the evil in the world and allows men to do what other men call good
.Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Are you going to say that Adam's sin was a surprise to God...that He was not prepared for it??
To know what before, Jean? Does it mean to know what you will do before you do it, or does it mean to know what others will do before it happens? Does it mean to purpose in yourself unconditionally, foreknowing that these will be so because you say they ARE so, or foreknowing that these will be so because these will, of their own accord, do thus and so? In other words, why does God even need to say that he foreknows, if what he 'foreknows' is simply himself?
What does Romans 8:29 say God 'foreknows'? Men? or Men's actions/thoughts?
First off, I do not see how this relates. If God foreknows men, does that not imply knowing the man's actions, responses, and thoughts? If God foreknows men's thoughts, responses, etc., does it not imply that God foreknows the entirety of that man?
It depends on what is is
You say God foreknew what we would do and so he predestined us to do it,rather redundant wouldn't you say?
Actually, no, I say, God foreknew who would meet his conditions, and predestined them to eternal life. That's the Arminian argument from the nature of the predestination; the Arminian argument from the scope of the predestination is probably the stronger of the two.
What's really redundant, though, is to say God fore-ordained (Jean keeps telling me that that's what it means in 1 Peter 1:20, after all) some to eternal life, therefore he fore-ordained them to eternal life. Even if you assumed that the first was the fore-ordination "from the foundation of the world," or from eternity, and the second was the fore-ordination as it occurred in time, it is still redundant.
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.