THE FREE-WILL OF MAN

God Rules ^ | Jacob Arminius

[xzins]

I have very consistently said that I am a calvinist in the tradition of Arminius. I don't recall ever saying that Paul was a Calvinist or that Paul was an Arminian.

I have said that Paul is a Christian. Likewise, I would say that Paul, Calvin, Arminius, Marlowe, Fru, Harley, and Xzins are all Christians.

With Paul, I'm tempted to say that I am the least. Without the Grace of God I would be a poor, lost wretch.

[Frumanchu]

It is illogical to state that Paul was a calvinist. It is logical to say that Calvin was a Paulist.

Unless of course by "Calvinist" one is referring primarily to the soteriological particulars that are commonly associated (and correctly so) with Calvin's work.

You see, I am a Calvinist in the sense that I agree with those doctrinal points. I am not a Calvinist in the sense that I follow John Calvin the man.

How many years has it been now and you guys keep going down the same tired paths of obfuscation.

[xzins]

I had someone state the other day that arminian means willing support of a church representative being a homosexual.

Would you consider that to be obfuscation? Or is that just horseplay...or misunderstanding...or...what?

[P-Marlowe]

Insidiously, he strove to dismantle the core of Scriptural truth -- salvation by the will of God alone.

So are you denying Salvation by grace through faith? God's will alone is sufficient for salvation?

If that were the case, then why was not the rallying cry of the Reformation "By God's will alone?" Forget faith, forget grace, just live as you do and maybe you'll be saved "by God's will alone"?

The scriptural position is that salvation is by Grace alone, through Faith alone.

You are obviously letting your contempt for Arminius cloud your theology.

Get it straight. Is it by grace through faith, or is it by God's will alone? Are we on the wings of a new Reformation?

[Frumanchu]

xzins has never gone as far as saying he is "of Arminius or of Calvin" As far as I know he has only labeled himself as theologically "a Calvinist in the tradition of Arminius" which is to say that he is probably neither a Calvinist as defined by the majority of those who call themselves Calvinists nor an Arminian as defined by the majority of those who call themselves Arminians.

And neither did GC say that Paul was "of Calvin." But you are quick to assume something of him that you give x a pass on. There's a word for that.

In the interim, please consider this conversation ended.

Assuming you let it go, I'm more than happy to.

Have a nice day.

[xzins]

Arminius is saying that a man is brought by grace, empowered by grace, and kept by grace.

I don't see the mistake in that, do you?

[ksen]

I have long described myself as a calvinist in the tradition of Arminius.

Which means about as much as being a Catholic in the tradition of Luther.

[xzins]

I thought Luther worked toward a reformation and not a reconstruction.

In that case a catholic in the tradition of Luther would make sense. If I reform something, doesn't that mean that my objective is to "fix" it and not to claim that we've got to start all over again? Serious question....that's how I've always looked at it.

[P-Marlowe]

Arminius is saying that a man is brought by grace, empowered by grace, and kept by grace. I don't see the mistake in that, do you?

That is my position.

As far as I can tell, that was Paul's position as well.

[xzins]

Does it make sense to say:

"I am a reaganite in the tradition of GWBush?"

I think it does.

[P-Marlowe]

Which means about as much as being a Catholic in the tradition of Luther.

If one defines "Catholic" in the sense that it is conveyed in the Nicene Creed, then yes indeed, most Lutherans would fall into that category -- as would most other Protestants.

[xzins]

It does make a difference when we read Arminius' own words. The problem is when so many ascribe some of these far-fetched things to him that simply aren't so. It weakens the rest of their argument whether it should do so or not.

[bethelgrad]

Chaplain,

I consider myself an Arminian in the Wesleyan tradition. However, I generally consider these discussions to be too divisive--and besides, as a fellow military chaplain, I rarely find this to be an issue in my ministry, where it pays to avoid non-essential items--and I consider this a non-essential. I offer Christ to my people, not Calvin, Arminius, or Apollos.

That being said, I think many on my side shy away from reading the Reformers because of the divisiveness of some of their representatives. I am currently reading Calvin's Institutes, and have discovered a humility in his writing lacking in his followers.

[xzins]

Hey, Chappie, thank you for your service! You perform such a needed ministry.

I think the calvin/arminian debates have calmed a great deal over the years, and are now able to be conducted at a reasonable level. I, too, come out of the Wesley/Arminian tradition, but I think I've come to appreciate some of Calvin's insights more than I would ever have heard at Asbury Seminary.

Calvin has made me think much more precisely about what Arminius, in particular, was actually supporting.

[jo kus]

The MAJORITY of synergists believe you are saved by God's grace. (There are some synergists that believe you must work for your salvation.)

Did Arminius teach that we are saved without God's graces at any point? When you say "work", does this mean "without God", or does this presume that God is working through the man? I suppose the question is what is the interaction between God and man when it comes to grace interacting with nature? Technically, even naturally, we have received everything from God. What do we have that is not a gift? Even our own choices are gifts, correct?

Would it be correct to say that a monergistic person is one who believes that God moves their will without any cooperation by the person? Is it fair to say that a person's will is more active after regeneration to do God's will? Or does the will still remain dead after regeneration, entirely relying on God to do all? If all this is true, what is the point of a human will (which Christ also had)? Why would He take on a human will if it was totally corrupt and evil?

To be honest, I don't know where I fit in your scheme, if it is not a "Protestant/Catholic" issue. There seems to be some overlap. Can a synergist still say God is entirely leading me to love and to will to love, and that my cooperation is merely "neutral"? (in other words, I do not REJECT God's graces - I don't really choose to do good)

Thanks in advance.

[jo kus]

If one defines "Catholic" in the sense that it is conveyed in the Nicene Creed, then yes indeed, most Lutherans would fall into that category -- as would most other Protestants.

Catholic comes from two Greek words, "kath holou", which means “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole”. Sometimes, it is shortened to mean “universal”, but this does a disservice to the true meaning. Thus, a Catholic is one who believes the totality of the Church’s teachings. By the fourth century, “catholic” referred to those Christians who accepted the “universal” faith of the Church, as opposed to those who accepted only parts of it.

In what sense do you believe is meant by the Nicean Creed when they say "catholic church"?

Regards

[HarleyD]

I have said that Paul is a Christian. Likewise, I would say that Paul, Calvin, Arminius, Marlowe, Fru, Harley, and Xzins are all Christians.

I would agree. But just like Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Job were all Jews who loved God that didn't stop them from discussing theology.

Each of the four held different views and points. As Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar found out there is only one right way to understand God. He gets pretty miffed when people don't talk about Him correctly. After all He tells us to pray for wisdom and knowledge so what should one expect. We just better be sure we're sincerely trying to understand Him.

[Frumanchu]

Peter was not using the term "bought" in a redemptive manner.

[Frumanchu]

I had someone state the other day that arminian means willing support of a church representative being a homosexual. Would you consider that to be obfuscation? Or is that just horseplay...or misunderstanding...or...what?

I have no idea. Wasn't my post.

[P-Marlowe]

As Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar found out there is only one right way to understand God. He gets pretty miffed when people don't talk about Him correctly. After all He tells us to pray for wisdom and knowledge so what should one expect. We just better be sure we're sincerely trying to understand Him.

That is the excuse the Mormons give for claiming that their position is the only true position.

Perhaps there are some things that are completely beyond our understanding. IMO soteriology is really one of those things. If we simply accept the scriptures for what they do say and don't attempt to interject our own theological prejudices into them we are left with esstially two irrefutable truths in regard to soteriology. 1) God is sovereign; and 2) Man is responsible.

Our differences lie mainly in trying to reconcile the two. On one side you have those who assert that men have unfettered free will and that God would never violate it and on the other side you have those who claim there is absolutely no such thing as free will.

I suspect that most of us lie somewhere between the two extremes.