Sanctified Trash- Jacob Arminius was ordained in the German Reformed Church, he was interviewed twice in his life to see if he was in line with orthodoxy. Both times he was considered Orthodox. It has only been the Calvinists vs. the Arminians fight that has been brutal. It blew up after his death, which is why there were somewhere around 18 excommunications of pastors and 1 beheading after the Synod of Dordt. 

The “monergists” that you name are weak, cheap coffee calvinists. Mainstream. Their books are usually off  by  lots, just like most Calvinists.  John MacArthur  is so looney he isn’t even Orthodox. John Piper teeter-totters with the New Perspectives on Paul. If I were in your place, I would start reading books by people like: John Calvin, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, James Jordan, Rich Lusk, Steve Wilkins, Mark Horne, John Williamson Nevin, Cornelius Van Til, Keith Mathison, John Frame, Geerhardus  Vos, R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Greg Bahnsen.

I won’t flatter you and call your arguments convincing or admirable nor will I judge your intelligence for stating them; I only point out what is left out.

1. Assumption: Arminians follow a false shepherd. Conclusion: God’s sheep do not follow strangers, so Arminians are damned.
-The assumption is not satisfactorily simple, it must be shown with clearer logic.

2. Isaiah 40:25 – this says that those nations have no knowledge, carry wood images, and pray to a God that cannot save. It does not state the if/then logic you draw from it as correlation does not directly imply causation. Even if it did, you assume Arminians believe that God cannot save based on their belief in the existence of unforced will. This is also a terribly unsimple assumption that should be shown with clearer logic.

3. You assume that Arminians believe in salvation by works. Surely James, himself, said a man is saved by works and not by faith alone. Yet we know he is speaking of salvation by works as a fruit of faith and not “works of the law” — an idiom used by Paul in the sense of gaining merit for salvation before God. A calvanist or Arminian who believes faith can exist apart from appropriate fruit, James says he’s quite deceived. Anyway, again, the belief in the possibility of unforced will does not seem to equate with salvation by works — if it does, please give a clear chain of logic.

4. This is a needless repetition of the prior point, as you say they do not believe in imputed righteousness and thus believe in attained righteousness by merit. Any biblical paradigm must submit to salvation by grace through faith in Christ. You submit that faith is given solely by God and cannot be determined by any measure of independant will of mankind. Again, you need to establish a clear chain of logic to say that this belief in the possibility of independant will resulting in faith is equated to belief in salvation by works and not imputed righteousness.

5. Simon thought the ability to impart the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands could be bought with money, not salvation. Whether Simon thought salvation could also be bought remains a mystery to the reader. Man does have a role to play in entering the God-given covenant in which God justifies in His grace and by His choice. This entrance is described by “through faith” in Romans 3:19-26. Again, you simply submit that this faith cannot have anything to do with independant will of man. Peter did not judge Simon Magnus as unregenerate but told him his heart was not right before God and commanded repentance for foregiveness. Again, this is also restating the last two issues in saying that Aminians by necessity must believe in a false gospel of salvation by merit of works. You also have yet to esablish that belief in unforced will of mankind equates to salvation by merit or works.

6. That was very poor interpretation and application — let the text speak for itself. The statement is that whoever drinks of the living water Christ gives them will not thirst again (in contrast with the water we’ve been drinking which does not satisfy). This likely has far more to do with Jeremiah 2 than it does with Galations, and you’re stretching the context in applying this to salvation by grace versus by works of the law. The bible says that we are saved by grace (make just by the work of Christ allowing God to be just and our justifier) through faith (belief and assent to the gospel message). We have a part to play in entering the covenant of imparted grace, and it’s called faith.

7. The main assertion here is that “Arminians do not believe God’s testimony, i.e. that the Father is perfectly well pleased with the work of the Son and that all believers have been given everlasting life”. The belief in independant will doesn’t seem to have much to do with God being pleased with the work of Christ; and if there is a connection, please establish it with clear, connected logic. Also, Arminians don’t seem to debate that all believers have been given everlasting life; if they do, please reference it and establish the connection to free will with clear, connected logic.

8. This passage does not require belief in a God who “controls everything”. It requires faith in God’s character and ability to do what He has promised to do (namely, give wisdom and all other promises liberally without reproach). This is the object of our faith in which we cannot entertain doubts. I agree that salvation is a promise in which we must have faith in order to receive. However, the idea that one must believe in fully bound will of mankind in order to have faith in the promises of God has yet to be clearly established.

9. a. Not a good argument. 2 Cor 13:15 says to examine yourself and you’ll know that Christ is in you unless you fail the exam (implying that He is not if the examination is failed). In the context, the word “approved” in similar sense to passing an examination is spoken of in reference to actions (verse 7 “that you do no wrong”). This is similar to 2 Peter 1 where we are told to add to ourselves the great and precious promises and abound in them to make our calling and election sure. Assurance of salvation and the source of salvation are two different things. Surely we are saved by Christ alone, but how can we know that our faith in that is real unless we indeed examine ourselves as we are commanded by scripture. Scripture stands in direct opposition to you in this point in fact. We are TOLD to examine ourselves and to thrive in the promises in order to make our calling and election sure (assurance). You say that belief is the only evidence of salvation…fine, I have no quarrels with this notion. However, what is the evidence of that belief? James and Jesus both say: Fruit! Therefore, whether indirectly or directly, fruit of belief does work as evidence for salvation, and we are commanded to keep watch of it so we don’t fail the examination.

9. b. I don’t know where to start. First: author’s intent. Paul’s purpose in that letter was simply to establish his audience and greet them. I doubt he had in mind an implied dissertation of assurance; therefore, I am going to ignore that as evidence unless you have clear evidence from the same letter or others of Paul that he intended this as part of the salutation. Going on. Nobody has assurance of the salvation of the Ephesians because we are not God and we did not live in their time or place so as to see the fruit of their lives. We only have severely, group-oriented, testimony of them by Paul. Taking another ordering of the logic of the sentence, you could mean that Arminians don’t have similar assurance of salvation because they do not know that the work of salvation is finished. The idea that Arminians don’t know that the work of salvation is finished (and I assume you mean justification in place of salvation here) has yet to be clearly established. If you say that faith is not required for justification, you clearly stand in direct opposition to scripture. Justification is allowed and given by the atoning sacrifice of Christ through faith. If you say that faith is not a part of salvation, then you are teaching clear heresy. I speak nothing of Calvanist/Arminian paradigms there either. If man is totally passive, then he need not even believe and is still imputed righteousness, and I hope you don’t take such an idea from scripture. You might mean to say that man does not cause his own belief, but that is not what you have said here. Also, where is your bridge between man’s passivity in justification and Christ’s fulfilling the law — the two topics seem disjoint in this context. And for the last statement, how can one be sure of their genuine assent to the propositions of the gospel? FRUIT!

9. c. True, we cannot “do” x,y,z to gain some sort of merit and attain righteousness before God; we must believe in what Christ “did” on the cross (to which I assume you are referring with “it is finished”). To say that we are saved by Christ’s atonement without believing in Christ’s atonement means that everyone regardless of belief or lordship is justified and saved. This does not seem to be what the Apostles or Jesus taught since wide is the path that leads to destruction and many will follow it. I am confused by this argument because what you derived from this verse had nothing directly to do with the intention of the verse, and you skipped over a very compelling argument that could be made from the verse. The verse says, “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”. With this, one reads that it is by the righteousness of our God that we obtain like precious faith and not by anything mankind does. You completely skipped over this too; I don’t know why. Anyway, it would have to be established as to what clause this modifier pertains, and I’m not knowledgable enough to say such (so I won’t, lol). Even still, this must be clearly connected with the issue of independant will.

10. Indeed, do not fellowship with a wolf in sheep’s clothing or any false brethren. This does not speak directly to salvation (though it does command repentance), and I find your obsession with the word “unregenerate” and quickness to divy it out quite odd and disturbing. Anyway, even if this were interpreted correctly, you have yet to establish that someone who believes in independant will is, in fact, damned.

I am not speaking against YOU in any of this; I am speaking against your poor arguments and requesting that you refine them in order to have better edification of the body. No hostility please, I have none against you, please have none against me; I know how discussions of this nature can get. Anyway, you wanted a refuatation, and I gave you refinement. Please give your arguments more clearly and interpret scripture based on context and author’s intent to the best of your ability.

Also speaking to the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9, I asked a fairly learned friend of mine about the structurally correct object of “gift of God” in the Greek, and:

Indeed. Actually, Greek grammar would indicate that the “gift of God” refers to the whole situation of being saved by grace, through faith. Something about the “that” or “it” (that not of yourselves–it is the gift of God) being neuter in the Greek, so it doesn’t refer to either “grace” or “faith.” I saw a debate once on the subject and somebody brought it up, so I did some reading on it in commentaries and Greek dictionaries and so forth, because I have trouble taking people’s words at face value, and it verified it.

You can check it out for yourself, Matt. I don’t know much Greek, so I’m afraid I can’t speak accurately on that matter. Anyway, God bless.

Concerning Eph. 2:8-9, the antecedent in greek when not clearly refering to a specific word is refering to an idea, and if you start in chapter 1 you can see that the whole process of salvation is being discussed, and this is the thought Paul has in mind. The KJV translators were so literal (or letter-al) that they simply put in faith so that it appeared to be the antecedent. A better way to have translated it would have been something like, “For you are saved by grace, through faith, and all of this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any should boast. If you look at Ephesians 1 it makes it very clear what salvation involves. It involves a spiritual miracle, making a dead spirit alive. Mankind is dead spiritually and needs a miracle of grace to be made alive again. No human action qualifies man to be saved. If that was true, those that accepted the message would have something to boast about. They were somehow smarter or more prudent, more sensitive or more moral, since they responded and others did not. We do respond to the gospel, but the context of how it happens is made very clear in Ephesians 1 and 2. It is by a miracle of grace, and if it was because of something man had done, there would be something man could boast in.

Hey, thanks for subscribing to my xanga.  I’m just curious, I don’t think I’ve ever met you before and I wasn’t sure who you were, lol.

Have a blessed day!

i’m so confused…

“I used to be a hyper-calvinist, but then my opinion changed pretty much completely because of emotional/philosophical reasons, not because scripture lead me to change.”

But the rule of faith is the Bible. I’m glad you realize it’s weak, but it seems to come more from a spiritual problem, one that put’s man’s thoughts above scripture if I understand your comment right.

“How can a Calvinist God be a loving God?” Using this kind of logic, I have seen people ask the question, “How can a Christian God be a loving God?” All kinds of different people doing good deeds out there every day, only to be thrown in the pit because they didn’t believe in Christ as their savior? All those religious people that do good every day thrown into the pit? How unloving, they say. You may say, “Ah, but he TRIED to save them” but they will just say, well if he’s so loving he could have just done something about it… after all, man is able to believe, he could have found some way to convince them, instead, he let them perish… what a mean, unloving God, they will say, and all sorts of other such arguments, take a look out there in forums on the inet and you’ll find a bunch in no time.

Now i find it very odd, that you ask for an answer, but then refuse to listen to a scripture that deals expressly with it. However I do find this consistent with your initial comment about changing for philisophical reasons.

Something I find missing is an awareness of the Holiness of God. Man has rebelled against an infinite, Holy God, and that deserves an infinite punishment. Man does not deserve a second chance, nor does mankind deserve a second chance based on a human notion of equality. We according to our human thinking think of equality as being fair; yet is Arminianism fair? Does everyone in that system get an equal chance? What about those that never hear the gospel? What about those that grew up in non-Christian societies? What about those kind people that were born into other religions, people that are moral and do good and help people? They go to the pit too.

The answer is that equality does not define Holiness, fairness, or love. It is impossible to be unfair to a people that didn’t deserve anything in the first place, particularly with all the cleaning up God has to do to our souls and our character to accept us. Mankind in his sinfullness thinks he deserves an equal chance, but he does not, he deserves the wrath of God for his sin. Arminians seem to assume that God cannot be loving if He is not “equal”. (which I put in quotes because arminianism is also not equal in the final analysis)

God is Holy, and a just wrath burns against sin, and yes sinners… if it was not personal, then surely the sinner would not have to go to hell. It is true that God says that he “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked” and his attitude is that he is not willing that “any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” as he calls all men to repent and believe, and expects them to, whether they are able or not. Just because a man is so depraved and abusive, so bad and such a lost cause that he was incapable of treating others well, does not mean we should not expect that man to do right. In other words, just because man has lost the ability to believe does not mean God loses the right to expect him to do so. Yet, arminians use this faulty logic and philosophy all the time, and I believe they do it because they tend to have a very weak view of God’s holiness. It keeps bringing to mind that verse you don’t want to hear, “who are you, o man, that replies against God?” But of course, only someone that didn’t understand God’s Holiness would do that.

God’s attitude over the regection of Him by the unsaved is just as Jesus wept when he came to jerusalem, “Oh Jerusalem, how I would have gatherd you as chicks under my wings, but you would not!” He takes no pleasure in it, and It is an unpleasant thing to God, that mankind stubbornly refuses to accept Him and is determined to reject Him, and they get what they want. This does not mean that God then HAS to be trying to save all equally. And by the way, God does not CAUSE man to sin, MAN is the cause of his sin. Mankind has rebelled against God and has a sinful nature, Eph.1. “The wicked go astray from the womb”, and the “heart of man is desperately wicked”.

I as someone who basicly accepts the “five points of Calvinism” do not find God to be unloving, unfair or anything of the sort.