[the_doc]

Notice that the two different "gospels" which I delineated in my #26 both talk about the problem of sin. They both talk about the necessity of faith in Christ. They both talk about the Spirit of God having a role in a sinner's conversion.

Does this mean they are both correct? No. These two positions are like two persons standing back to back. They are very close to each other, but they are facing in opposite directions.

If we examine the two positions a little longer we discover that they are like duelers who are bent on destroying each other.

So, which one is the correct position?

***

To answer this question, we probably ought to summarize the two positions as follows: The Calvinistic position maintains that regeneration produces conversion. The Arminian position denies that regeneration is necessary to conversion.

(Most Arminians actually maintain that conversion produces regeneration.)

So, which one is the correct position?

***

I think there are several clues as to which position is correct, even for the person who doesn't know the Bible very well. But we still need to look at the Bible to get the right answer.

We ought to be able to do this by focusing on the only non-synoptic gospel (the Gospel of John) to see if we can figure out from Christ's Own gospel emphasis whether regeneration produces repentant faith (or vice versa, perhaps). Unfortunately, Arminians will just interpret everything in the Gospel in an anti-Calvinistic way and refuse to budge (even if their position is not a reasonable way to read the Gospel of John).

So, a better way to resolve the controversy is to notice, first of all, that both positions can't be correct. One of them definitely is a lie from hell. While we are at it, we should notice why the positions are so close together but ultimately opposites. It's because the false position is a lie from hell serving as a false gospel. It is designed to be deceptive. It looks almost exactly like the real thing. But the false gospel has gotten some critical element of the true gospel backwards.

And when we realize that one of the two positions is a Satanic fraud, a false gospel, we should see if we can find it in the Lie of Eden.

And we can. It turns out that Arminianism is the Lie of Eden.

Please look at what Satan said in Genesis 3. (It becomes a very eerie statement when we realize what the Arminian position actually asserts!)

More later.

[the_doc]

To give you an additional tip as to what I am saying, let me point out that I am not saying that the Arminian position is contained in the Lie of Eden.

Rather, I am saying that the Arminian position is the Lie of Eden itself.

(When you see it, you may very well start laughing. Arminianism is a nasty but exceedingly clever fraud!)