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).
Well, this is totally different from Christianity as it has been believed and taught since the time of Christ. Orthodox Christianity views God as a loving savior, not a stern judge who creates people only to damn them.
Christ's death on the cross for ALL mankind earned us grace. And any action performed in a state of grace and united to Christ is meritorious, which in turn earns a person more grace and helps a them grow holier and closer to God.
=)
Perhaps I should just say, "In this corner...
:))
====
By all means list them and let those on both sides have a crack at them.
"the benefits God confers upon men are revealed by the Holy Ghost to holy men according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 2:12): "Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given us from God." Therefore if man were predestined by God, since predestination is a benefit from God, his predestination would be made known to each predestined; which is clearly false.
In this I tend to agree. The two sides of the debate tend to talk past each other in a never ending circle. "Unifying theories" are few and far between (which is why Hugh Ross's attempt is so noteworthy).
====
I would concur. Hopefully, on this thread the varying views could talk to each other -- and do so persuasively yet graciously.
The same question, I would think, could be made concerning any other gift from God; i.e. why, if this promise is true, are some beneficiaries apparently ignorant of their gifts. The Holy Spirit teaches. Teaching is a process; it takes time. It isn't (usually) "poof" and voila, instant complete illumination.
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.