... the key difference for Arminius was not in the issue of God's sovereignty or election or total depravity or the atonement but Arminius' contention was that God has chosen to reveal Himself as loving and good and that His desire is not to force people to believe the gospel but for them, through His Spirit (John 6:44), to come to salvation in the Lamb of God (John 1:29).But, of course, Calvinism agrees that the God of the Bible is loving and good. Moreover, Calvinism agrees that God does not force people to believe the gospel against their will, but through the Spirit changes their will so that they go from loving darkness rather than light to loving the light.
Perhaps the title of the post at Arminian Today is more suitable than the author intended: "Confusion Over Arminianism Continues...."
-TurretinFan
46 comments:
TF wrote and agrees supposedly:"Calvinism agrees that God does not force people to believe the gospel against their will,
(*But in the next Breath you say he does.)
but through the Spirit changes their will so that they go from loving darkness rather than light to loving the light".
TF, this the most contradictory thing I have ever heard.
God gives us the spirit to change our mind and our hearts toward him through his loving spirit. Not force our wills.
If their will was to believe, then Why does God change their will against their will?
Even Jesus prayed Not my will but your will be done. He gave over his lower human will to the ultimate will of God both in him and in heaven at the same time.
"God gives us the spirit to change our mind and our hearts toward him through his loving spirit. Not force our wills."
He doesn't force our wills, he changes our wills.
"If their will was to believe, then Why does God change their will against their will?"
Their will was not to believe. It was to hate God. God changes that hatred into love.
"Even Jesus prayed Not my will but your will be done."
He certainly didn't pray that to men.
-TurretinFan
The drawing of the Father in John 6:44 is an irresistable drawing since the one drawn will come to faith in Christ and raised up on the last day. The word " him " is used two times in the verse. It refers to the same exact one who is to be drawn. God inwardly enlightens the person and inclines one to faith in Jesus. The folly of Arminianism is their failure to see efficacious calling is the work of the omnipotence of God in which God speaks and it is done. Arminians want to claim Calvinist teach that " men are forced to believe againist their wills " but none of the Reformed Creeds even teaches that at all and in fact contradicts that misrepresentation. God is able to irresisably draw a lost person to faith in Jesus Christ without forcing the person againist their will.
When dealing with the mentally ill, a psychiatrist may have to treat the patient without the patient's consent. Indeed, the patient may have been involuntarily committed for his own safety.
But by administering a psychotropic drug to a psychotic patient, the psychiatrist isn't forcing the will of the patient. Rather, he's restoring the patient's sanity.
Likewise, monergistic regenerates restores the will to its natural, godly predisposition.
"TF, this the most contradictory thing I have ever heard."
What amazes me is the fact that when I read the very same thing, I say something so contrary to that comment there!
I conclude that not until the Spirit of Grace and Truth moves upon the soul, the soul just might make a similar conclusion as that underlined above!
DTS
"... The folly of Arminianism is their failure to see efficacious calling is the work of the omnipotence of God in which God speaks and it is done."
Chafer, from where I sit I would observe that that is way to narrow of a reality or brush stroke.
Rather, isn't it a fact that not until God moves upon the mind and will of a soul they too sit in darkness? Why consign that reality to "just" the Arminian? Foist this folly on everyone who is not drawn to Christ by the Election, by the Calling, through the Powerful working of the Spirit of Grace.
There is so much more that can be developed here. I would leave off commenting further with these Words of Scripture as a concentration of what it is I am speaking to:
Rom 15:8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,
Rom 15:9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name."
Rom 15:10 And again it is said, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
Rom 15:11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples extol him."
Rom 15:12 And again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope."
Rom 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.
Rom 15:14 I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another.
Rom 15:15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God
Rom 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
I would say not until God gives the soul ears hearing will they hear, receive the gift of repentance, repent and receive the forgiveness of sins and sojourn there on out for the Will and Purpose of God's Glory through Jesus Christ the Lord and that, through the Spirit of Grace that comes alive within the heart and mind of those elected and called to His Eternal Glory in Christ!
The difficulty of discussing such things is compounded by the fact that in many cases the interlocutors are employing utterly different terms and theological presuppositions, even while employing the same words.
It's ironic to me, for example, that synergists and modalists will often levy the same types of charges against Calvinists, to wit that we worship a "God" other than the One true and living God of the Holy Bible.
That's telling.
In Christ,
CD
No TF he did not pray that to men! But he prayed as a real man that was incarnated, that you deny in your trinity doctrine.
Oneness has one real Human will, and One real ultimate will of God both existing in Jesus distinct and not confused in the incarnation.
John 6:44
Is not an irresistible drawing! In the next verse it says: they will all be taught of God.(Through his word) Not some mystical nonsesne of Calvinism you prop up!
"When dealing with the mentally ill, a psychiatrist may have to treat the patient without the patient's consent. Indeed, the patient may have been involuntarily committed for his own safety.
But by administering a psychotropic drug to a psychotic patient, the psychiatrist isn't forcing the will of the patient. Rather, he's restoring the patient's sanity."
That is really a wonderful analogy. Thanks for sharing that.
Truth unites and divides...Even worse is the spiritually ill and even dead. you think you can get away with calling people names. Calvinism is far from truth.
M.C.:
I'm not going to get dragged into a discussion of your favorite subject, oneness.
-TurretinFan
Modalism is heresy.
Lockheed Wrote :"Modalism is heresy."
Because of that very ignorance is
why I am here.
This person knows nothing of Oneness, so uses the term (Modalism is the first hint they do not know what they are talking about.) The term given us by Bad Reformed Apologetics concerning the Christian view.(Yes the scriptural view.)
Maybe "Sabellianism" is preferable?
CD
No Oneness is preferable. That is what we are.
We do not want any of your unscriptural tags. You already named God an unscriptural name (Trinity) and saddled him with your manmade doctrine,just like you do everything that you do not understand.
Manuel doesn't like to have position called anything except "Oneness." It is not trinitarianism, and we'll leave it at that.
Let's not get sucked into a tangent over the orthodoxy of non-trinitarian positions.
Interesting that here we have someone arguing for Oneness and on Triablogue we have someone arguing for Unitarianism.
But given Trinitarianism, falling into these two types of errors is exactly what we would expect.
mlculwell,
The term given us by Bad Reformed Apologetics concerning the Christian view.
It's not just "Bad Reformed Apologetics" against your heresy. Arminians are also calling your view unChristian, as has the history of Christians throughout Church history. Calvinists aren't your only theological opponent.
Johnathon, and William Watson Birch, Neither of you know what you are talking about, and we are not Unitarians!
For One we believe Jesus is the One true God and there is no other (Let me hear you say that with me?)
And before the Incarnation God was not a person at all but the Ultimate divine spirit. God is Only a person ion the person of the son in other words Jesus is the Only person of God that you or I will ever see!
Calvinism is a follower of John Calvin's a man's un-scriptural teachings, therefore a cult.
We have Only the God man(Jesus) as our leader and no other than He.(Not Just a man.)
mlculwell,
"But filled with the Holy Spirit [one divine person of the Trinity], he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God [another divine person of the Trinity] and Jesus [yet another divine person of the Trinity] standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55 NRSV).
How is Jesus standing at the right hand of or next to Jesus? This you must deny. And you call Calvinism a cult? Right . . .
TF,
I guess it goes without saying that there are more confused commenting in here than just the Arminians?
At the end of the day, which we all will face, thank you father Adam, grrrr, we will all have our end of the day and for those clothed with His Righteousness and not their own, these Word surely are as sweet as honey:
Isa 2:2 It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it,
Isa 2:3 and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Isa 2:4 He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
Isa 2:5 O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD.
...
Hab 2:13 Behold, is it not from the LORD of hosts that peoples labor merely for fire, and nations weary themselves for nothing?
Hab 2:14 For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
And why you might ask, will this be so?
Here's a glimpse into why it will be so:
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
mlculwell,
BTW, Jonathan did not comment that you or Oneness people are Unitarians. You need to calm down and read correctly. He wrote: Interesting that here [i.e., here at this particular blog] we have someone arguing for Oneness and on Triablogue [another site] we have someone arguing for Unitarianism.
Oneness folk, Jesus-Only, and Unitarians are distinguishable. Alas, we actually do know what we're talking about after all.
mlculwell,
"But filled with the Holy Spirit [one divine person of the Trinity], he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God [another divine person of the Trinity] and Jesus [yet another divine person of the Trinity] standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55 NRSV).
------------------------------------This is your argument?
A vague weak argument! Do you know how many times I have heard this? You have not had many dealings with the truth I see,
This is Oneness all the way! It shows me the Power of God in the Incarnation. In Oneness we have the man Jesus(Not another person of God) but the only person of God and the spirit in him and In heaven. Yes He does have conversations and even [prays to the God in him and In heaven at the same time.(You have a fake prayers of God prying to God!)
------------------------------------
How is Jesus standing at the right hand of or next to Jesus? This you must deny. And you call Calvinism a cult? Right . . .
------------------------------------
More amateur hour! *The right hand of God* is a metaphor all through out scripture for power and acceptance. Jesus is standing on the right hand of God because his humanity is both accepted as son an has all power in heaven and earth.
How is God standing on the right hand of God? That makes tow gods in my book. Silly doctrine!
Calvinism is a Cult!
Turretinfan,
L O L . . . now I see why you refuse to engage such an ignorant fool. Wow. God bless you, TF.
William Watson Birch, Sir, I have been called a Unitarian By James White, By TF, And By other Reformed. Yes they did not know what they were talking about. But yes I also misread his comment because of a past run ins with being called a Unitarian I am in defense Mode.(No Pun intended)
William Birch,
Is this how you engage By calling people ignorant fools? Very Nice argument there!
You submit *the right hand of God* and show that you have not studied properly and you call me an ignorant fool? Please?
William Birch, I consider TF a friend even though we disagree.
If you do not know me and you do not, then do not call me a fool, especially after a few exchanges on a comment box of a blog.
I would be glad to show you how much of an ignorant fool I am on the subject of the Right Hand of God.
Friend's don't hijack other friend's blogs.
I did not Highjack. I disagree with TF.So I comment.
Is it even possible for an apologist for soul-damning heresy and an apologist for the One true and living God to be "friends" in any meaningful sense?
I'm not sure about the Biblical evidence for that sort of arrangement. Certainly Christians are commanded to love their enemies, but notice that they are enemies nonetheless.
"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?" - 2 Cor. 6:14
In Christ,
CD
I said I disagree with his doctrine I do not hate anyone. I hate false doctrine. The trinity is false doctrine make no mistake about it! I will never ever believe the doctrine of the man made trinity!
We have never met by the way, I consider him a friend as far as friends go on the net, so do not get too bent out of shape! I am not going to excuse his doctrine, nor he mine.
I've got a pal who's a unitarian, but he doesn't spend time on my blog bad mouthing the orthodox faith. He knows that if he as something to say, he can very well make his own blog.
I have my own Blog. Just because you claim you are the orthodox faith does not make it so. You prove that with your doctrine. Your doctrine does not line up with scripture. It does line up with ancient false teachers though.
I am going to tell you the truth no matter who you are or what you think your doctrine is.
Mark 12:35-36--And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, "How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, 'YHVH said to my Lord, "Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."'"
Now, let's think this through. If Jesus alone is God (YHVH), then Jesus is telling the people that King David heard YHVH (Jesus) tell David's Lord (Jesus) to sit at His right hand. So...Jesus is telling Himself to sit at His own right hand?
Much like in John 17 where Jesus prays to Himself.
Four Pointer, for what it is worth, I also am amazed with these verses:
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
...
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
...
Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Rev 22:3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.
And then the very same Spirit of Grace and Truth has this written too:
Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Oh yeah, and as for the revelation God gave King David about King Jesus, his son, the Prophet Nathan spoke this to him about those "two thrones":
1Ch 17:9 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall waste them no more, as formerly,
1Ch 17:10 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will subdue all your enemies. Moreover, I declare to you that the LORD will build you a house.
1Ch 17:11 When your days are fulfilled to walk with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
1Ch 17:12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever.
1Ch 17:13 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,
1Ch 17:14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.'"
1Ch 17:15 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
Clearly mlculwell is espousing a doctrine of a demon or demons!
Jesus is telling Himself to sit at His own right hand?
Much like in John 17 where Jesus prays to Himself.
LOL Game Set Match to orthodoxy.
"Jesus is telling Himself to sit at His own right hand?
Much like in John 17 where Jesus prays to Himself."
The above is ignorance of the scriptures compounded. Sitting at *the right hand of God* is not a geographic area.
It is a place of Power and acceptance of his humanity. How Can God sit at the right hand of god unless there are two Gods? Your doctrine is nothing but one bad contradiction after another.
God praying to God is Just as Bad! Now I told you all to come and debate me on these subjects and all I get are comments like these.
mlculwell,
You appear to make a category error in your understanding of what the trinity is. I would recommend reading Dr. James White's The Forgotten Trinity. He does a good job of explaining the Trinity and address some of the objections to it.
Lee
The above is ignorance of the scriptures compounded. Sitting at *the right hand of God* is not a geographic area.
What or where the "right hand of God" is is immaterial. The point Jesus was making to the Jews was that the Father gave Him the position of power (to sit at His right hand). "YHVH said to ME..." So, obviously, He was making a distinction between Himself and the Father--although He would say in John 10:30 that He and the Father are One (see Deuteronomy 6:4). And it was this distinguishing Himself from the Father that caused the Jews to get in such an uproar, thinking that He was claiming for Himself power that He did not rightfully possess. When, by the very fact that Jesus was very God of very God, He had every right to possess the power He was telling the Jews He possessed.
Furthermore, do you really think that Jesus gave Himself power? That would mean that Jesus (who alone is God, according to you) did not have the power that He gave to Himself. If there is no distinction between Father and Son, then Jesus' use of these words of David makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I would be very interested to read what any of the writers from the early church had to say in support of the Oneness doctrine. Anybody such as Polycarp, Ignatius, etc., or anybody (before Sabellius, that is).
mlculwell,
You appear to make a category error in your understanding of what the trinity is. I would recommend reading Dr. James White's The Forgotten Trinity. He does a good job of explaining the Trinity and address some of the objections to it.
Lee
I have that book and it is garbage. That is my opinion on his written opinion of what he thinks God is.
Four pointer:"distinguishing Himself from the Father that caused the Jews to get in such an uproar, thinking that He was claiming for Himself power that He did not rightfully possess. When, by the very fact that Jesus was very God of very God, He had every right to possess the power He was telling the Jews He possessed.
Furthermore, do you really think that Jesus gave Himself power?"
No I do not think Jesus gave himself Power. The very question shows me you do not understand the scriptures or what i believe. Yes there is a distinction between the father and the son and Yes Jesus was Given all power in both heaven and earth. You will not understand anything I have just said.
Yet another non-answer, of the same vein in which you have given non-answers to the many before. Thank you for showing the depth of the Oneness position.
Four Pointer I invited you to debate. This is a comment box. There is no room here for debate. I am not going to do a word verification every time.Talk about depth. Your questions are pathetic.
Fourpointer I would be embarrassed if I were you.
Your Sad apologetic teachers have betrayed you. You show you have no idea what you are talking about.
The distinction is between the spirit of God and the flesh God incarnated. The flesh that God Incarnated.(One real man and One real God do not two persons of God no matter how you try and force it.)
A real man that you do not have Could not give himself anything.
Jesus as a real man did not even know the time of His own second coming but the father only(Mark13:32) I waste my time trying to clear up your bad apologetic teachings.
There are greater challenges to your position, Manuel, as you probably know.
But for the rest of you, Manuel is put in an uncomfortable position here. I'm asking him not to promote/argue for Oneness here, yet you all (well, several of you) seem to be demanding him to answer.
Let me propose a compromise. I will create a new post that I will call "Challenge to Oneness." It will pose a question that I think is difficult for a Oneness advocate to answer. And you all can pose additional challenges in the comment box there, if you like.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment