Arminianism and the Sovereignty of God

[Stan1953]

The term freewill is an expression lost in semantics. Free from sin or free from God draws two separate distinctions and two opposite meanings. Free from sin can only happen after being a sinner. When Satan first introduced the proposition that God could be disobeyed and one would yet live, the choice of whether to believe God or Satan was introduced. The issue therefore is about where one puts their faith. To even ponder the proposition as a viable choice, is already not regarding the Holy God as Holy. It is a subtle lie that pollutes the soul as one counts it as his freedom to disobey. A person of innocence would most likely be unaware of all the implications that follow the proposition. Nonetheless, it would necessarily follow that to consider the proposition is to not esteem God as God.

It seems to me you are distinguishing between free WILL and freedom?
In the case of the OP, freewill has to do with choice. We are not chosen to be saved, we choose to do so. That would be OUR will doing the choosing.

 

[childeye]

It seems to me you are distinguishing between free WILL and freedom?
In the case of the OP, freewill has to do with choice. We are not chosen to be saved, we choose to do so. That would be OUR will doing the choosing.

Not necessarily. Without Truth one cannot see they are deceived. Hence men persecute men of God thinking they are serving God. Salvation is about revelation and removing the blinders which is performed by the Holy Spirit of Truth. Men cannot choose to see, they are given sight.

 

[Stan1953]

Not necessarily. Without Truth one cannot see they are deceived. Hence men persecute men of God thinking they are serving God. Salvation is about revelation and removing the blinders which is performed by the Holy Spirit of Truth. Men cannot choose to see, they are given sight.

I agree, but as Paul shows in Romans 1, we are all shown the God of the universe through His creation, so there is NO excuse for not seeing.

 

[childeye]

I agree, but as Paul shows in Romans 1, we are all shown the God of the universe through His creation, so there is NO excuse for not seeing.

A very good scriptural reference to make your point. However, I would again reiterate my first post on this thread wherein I point out that the term free will is lost in semantics. For in Romans 1, Paul is referring to the Godhead and the invisible attributes of God being recognized in the creation by the created. We experience Godliness and all things godly because God gave us this when He created us. Consequently men do not have any excuse to do what exactly? Paul answers this by saying, "Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful". This indicates that men took God and godliness for granted. For elsewhere, he goes on to say that they professed themselves wise and became fools. This indicates to me that men took God's attributes as their own in vanity. Hence Paul is saying there is no excuse for thinking I made myself good and wise.

I therefore do not see this as applicable to free choice. Paul himself persecuted believers before his blinders were removed. My own personal experiences with the Holy Spirit also verifies to me the folly of my own prideful reasoning. I therefore am humbled at the sight and not by my choice.

Now you might say we knew God gave us godliness and we freely chose to be vain. That is one connotation. But I would call it ignorance. True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and therefore one cannot simply choose to be truly thankful and then choose not to be. In fact I believe that is why we are here in the flesh, to lose what we took for granted so that one day we may truly appreciate God for Who He is and worship Him in Truth.

 

[childeye]

double post.

 

[Stan1953]

A very good scriptural reference to make your point. However, I would again reiterate my first post on this thread wherein I point out that the term free will is lost in semantics. For in Romans 1, Paul is referring to the Godhead and the invisible attributes of God being recognized in the creation by the created. We experience Godliness and all things godly because God gave us this when He created us. Consequently men do not have any excuse to do what exactly? Paul answers this by saying, "Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful". This indicates that men took God and godliness for granted. For elsewhere, he goes on to say that they professed themselves wise and became fools. This indicates to me that men took God's attributes as their own in vanity. Hence Paul is saying there is no excuse for thinking I made myself good and wise.

I therefore do not see this as applicable to free choice. Paul himself persecuted believers before his blinders were removed. My own personal experiences with the Holy Spirit also verifies to me the folly of my own prideful reasoning. I therefore am humbled at the sight and not by my choice.

Now you might say we knew God gave us godliness and we freely chose to be vain. That is one connotation. But I would call it ignorance. True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and therefore one cannot simply choose to be truly thankful and then choose not to be. In fact I believe that is why we are here in the flesh, to lose what we took for granted so that one day we may truly appreciate God for Who He is and worship Him in Truth.

Paul said; For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
This illustrates the truth already stated in v19; since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
No excuse to not believe. No excuse to say I didn't know. No excuse to not submit to God.
There is no doubt vanity plays a role with some, but it is no excuse. They are still aware of the truth, and CHOOSE to ignore it. THAT is free will.

Paul chose when He encountered the reality of Jesus Christ, and subsequent to that, he wrote Rom 1. That was after at least 14 years of tutelage under Jesus personally. Paul also affirms free will in Philemon 1:14 (NASB)

In my personal experience, I chose to accept my savior, as Paul also instructs in Rom 10:9-11 (NIV)

God draws us to His son. That drawing is not forceful compliance, but an appeal to our spirit from His Spirit to accept His truth and gift of salvation. We choose to either accept that truth, or deny it.

 

[childeye]

Paul said; For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
This illustrates the truth already stated in v19; since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
No excuse to not believe. No excuse to say I didn't know. No excuse to not submit to God.
There is no doubt vanity plays a role with some, but it is no excuse. They are still aware of the truth, and CHOOSE to ignore it. THAT is free will.

This is a good example of what I mean by the term free will being lost in semantics. Paul is indeed talking about no excuse to not submit to God, since He is after all Who sits at the Godhead. This does not imply mankind has a free will to not submit but rather the opposite, that mankind has an obligation to submit since He is God who sits at the Godhead. Show me a man who distrusts God and I will show you a man who thinks he knows better than God. What excuse does any man have to think he is free in his will to decide he knows better than God? Such reasoning is not sound of mind.

I take note that Satan possessed the sum of knowledge but yet he fell because of vanity. In my most honest appraisal, it is therefore fitting to lean toward humility and admit that vanity could blind anyone. Hence I take it to heart when Romans two says, Therefore you are inexcusable O man, whosoever you are that judges; for wherein you judge another you condemn yourself, for you that judges does the same things.

Paul chose when He encountered the reality of Jesus Christ, and subsequent to that, he wrote Rom 1. That was after at least 14 years of tutelage under Jesus personally. Paul also affirms free will in Philemon 1:14 (NASB)

More semantics with the word chose. Of course he chose. Every action of every moment can be construed as a choice whether one does something or does nothing. However as regards to a free choice, I would respectfully submit that it is speculation to say Paul could choose otherwise than how he chose. He often claims he is in chains to Christ and I believe it is for that very reason. More semantics In Philemon. The phrase free will in verse 14 is meant to mean voluntarily. Paul is simply saying he did not want to exploit his relationship with Philemon but rather wants his whole hearted approval. He is not advocating that mankind has a freewill in the theological sense.

In my personal experience, I chose to accept my savior, as Paul also instructs in Rom 10:9-11 (NIV)

Every decision is a choice but not necessarily a free choice. There are reasons that convince the mind to choose one way or the other. I seriously doubt you can choose to not believe in the Christ and to honestly choose the devil. Christ confirms by saying, no man can come to me except it be given by God.

God draws us to His son. That drawing is not forceful compliance, but an appeal to our spirit from His Spirit to accept His truth and gift of salvation. We choose to either accept that truth, or deny it.

I agree we will either trust in Jesus or not. That is an unavoidable consequence of having the choice placed before us through the Gospel, not because we chose to make a choice. It is also true God does not force a man to comply so long as Love is not counted as a force. But once again this is just semantics. As for me, the words of Christ were in accord with the Word of God in my heart and I could only agree. I could not choose otherwise. His desire to return good for evil and the forgiveness upon those who beat him and crucified him impressed upon me the Love that is divine. That I cannot deny and therefore was not a free choice, but rather a conviction in my heart. God did not force me by threat of hell to Love this image of Him presented in the Christ. But I cannot help but be moved so long as I have Love and therefore know Love. Why someone would choose otherwise has probably more to do with a blindness than with a freewill. It is ironic to me therefore that Christ forgives and excuses saying, "they know not what they do", while the term free will is used to promote blame.

 

[Deborah13]

Paul said; For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
This illustrates the truth already stated in v19; since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
No excuse to not believe. No excuse to say I didn't know. No excuse to not submit to God.
There is no doubt vanity plays a role with some, but it is no excuse. They are still aware of the truth, and CHOOSE to ignore it. THAT is free will.

Paul chose when He encountered the reality of Jesus Christ, and subsequent to that, he wrote Rom 1. That was after at least 14 years of tutelage under Jesus personally. Paul also affirms free will in Philemon 1:14 (NASB)

In my personal experience, I chose to accept my savior, as Paul also instructs in Rom 10:9-11 (NIV)

God draws us to His son. That drawing is not forceful compliance, but an appeal to our spirit from His Spirit to accept His truth and gift of salvation. We choose to either accept that truth, or deny it.

Good post.

 

[agua.]

A very good scriptural reference to make your point. However, I would again reiterate my first post on this thread wherein I point out that the term free will is lost in semantics. For in Romans 1, Paul is referring to the Godhead and the invisible attributes of God being recognized in the creation by the created. We experience Godliness and all things godly because God gave us this when He created us. Consequently men do not have any excuse to do what exactly? Paul answers this by saying, "Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful". This indicates that men took God and godliness for granted. For elsewhere, he goes on to say that they professed themselves wise and became fools. This indicates to me that men took God's attributes as their own in vanity. Hence Paul is saying there is no excuse for thinking I made myself good and wise.

I therefore do not see this as applicable to free choice. Paul himself persecuted believers before his blinders were removed. My own personal experiences with the Holy Spirit also verifies to me the folly of my own prideful reasoning. I therefore am humbled at the sight and not by my choice.

Now you might say we knew God gave us godliness and we freely chose to be vain. That is one connotation. But I would call it ignorance. True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and therefore one cannot simply choose to be truly thankful and then choose not to be. In fact I believe that is why we are here in the flesh, to lose what we took for granted so that one day we may truly appreciate God for Who He is and worship Him in Truth.

Now you might say we knew God gave us godliness and we freely chose to be vain. That is one connotation. But I would call it ignorance. True worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and therefore one cannot simply choose to be truly thankful and then choose not to be. In fact I believe that is why we are here in the flesh, to lose what we took for granted so that one day we may truly appreciate God for Who He is and worship Him in Truth

This part confuses me. What do you mean by " In fact I believe that is why we are here in the flesh" ?

 

[Stan1953]

Hi Childeye...please fix your post 27 so I can reply to it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have had those who call themselves Calvinists tell me they don't use it to define their allegiance to Calvin, but to confirm their allegiance to the T.U.L.I.P. doctrine. A lot don't even know what Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Most of them are more so Neo-Puritans, as they follow in step with John Piper's teachings which is more faithful to the Puritans than John Calvin. Christian Hedonism.

Sadly that is NOT seen by those already indoctrinated.

Indeed, but eventually it can be seen.

A lot does, and then there are the four point Calvinists who spell it T.U.I.P., not agreeing with Limited Atonement.

I would always call those people "confused Arminians." lol

I'm aware that those who call themselves Arminian are also divided as such, the difference being Eternal Security.

Eternal Security and Corporate versus Election on the basis of foreknowledge of faith. Those would be the major distinctions Arminians have with each other.

 

[Stan1953]

Most of them are more so Neo-Puritans, as they follow in step with John Piper's teachings which is more faithful to the Puritans than John Calvin. Christian Hedonism.

Never heard of that kind of hedonism before, but I did a quick read on it. I can't say I'm a John Piper fan, but this article would make me even less that one. We obey out of faith, The JOY of the Lord is our strength, I find it hard to use anything out of my carnal nature to serve God.

Indeed, but eventually it can be seen.

One can pray and hope so.

I would always call those people "confused Arminians." lol

In their view they are enlightened, so what can you do?

Eternal Security and Corporate versus Election on the basis of foreknowledge of faith. Those would be the major distinctions Arminians have with each other.

Well there aren't many out here that I have encountered, so for the most part I debate five point Calvinists.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Never heard of that kind of hedonism before, but I did a quick read on it. I can't say I'm a John Piper fan, but this article would make me even less that one. We obey out of faith, The JOY of the Lord is our strength, I find it hard to use anything out of my carnal nature to serve God.

The main phrase that he uses to describe it is this. "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him." Or an altering of the Westminster confession of faith:

The chief end of man is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. (Westminster version)
The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever. (John Piper)

It is a call back to the Puritanical emphasis on religious affections, rather than grumbling obedience. That pushing deeper with faith in God ought to bring us deeper into joy. I am not totally against Christian Hedonism, and I think it has some admirable qualities (though using the term hedonism can make it easily be misunderstood). I think Calvinism places such emphasis on the glory of God that all his other qualities become basically meaningless.

One can pray and hope so.

Happened to me, hence I am no longer a Calvinist despite being a very ardent defender of the TULIP at one point.

In their view they are enlightened, so what can you do?

Most Calvinists start off as 4 Point Calvinists, until they recognize that the other 4 Points of the TULIP can't logically work without the L. Calvinism is very systematic and if you deconstruct one pillar you deconstruct them all.

 

[Stan1953]

The main phrase that he uses to describe it is this. "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him." Or an altering of the Westminster confession of faith:
The chief end of man is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. (Westminster version)
The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever. (John Piper)
It is a call back to the Puritanical emphasis on religious affections, rather than grumbling obedience. That pushing deeper with faith in God ought to bring us deeper into joy. I am not totally against Christian Hedonism, and I think it has some admirable qualities (though using the term hedonism can make it easily be misunderstood). I think Calvinism places such emphasis on the glory of God that all his other qualities become basically meaningless.

Yes as stated I did read over it quickly and found enough to warrant me going no further.

Happened to me, hence I am no longer a Calvinist despite being a very ardent defender of the TULIP at one point.

Well maybe you can PM me and advise what specifically freed you from that dogma, or was it just a slow methodical breaking down of the rational behind it?

Most Calvinists start off as 4 Point Calvinists, until they recognize that the other 4 Points of the TULIP can't logically work without the L. Calvinism is very systematic and if you deconstruct one pillar you deconstruct them all.

So far not my experience...the four points do argue a lot with the five points thought.
They argue as much on the other points with me though.

 

[childeye]

This part confuses me. What do you mean by " In fact I believe that is why we are here in the flesh" ?

God's overall plan

This part confuses me. What do you mean by " In fact I believe that is why we are here in the flesh" ?

What I mean is that God is bringing forth children unto Himself and that these children are brought forth out of corruption. Mankind takes God for granted usurping what is God's in vanity. Like the prodigal son, we must find out what it is we had all along but could not appreciate until we lost it. The prodigal son returns with a new attitude towards his Father. For God has chosen the lowly things over the high things so that no one may glory, but that God alone is glorified. We are here in this world which will pass away. It is not eternal. Here is where we learn how to appreciate all that is good by experiencing the absence of such goodness in all forms of depravity and the attributable consequences.

 

[childeye]

Hi Childeye...please fix your post 27 so I can reply to it.

I don't see how to fix it since I have no editing capabilities. Sorry. Perhaps you could say what your points are or where you differ, I think I'll get it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yes as stated I did read over it quickly and found enough to warrant me going no further.

Fair enough.

Well maybe you can PM me and advise what specifically freed you from that dogma, or was it just a slow methodical breaking down of the rational behind it?

It's a bit of a long story, but ultimately it was because I turned to the Scripture without looking through the eyes of a Calvinist, but rather tried to look at it in it's 1st Century context. Then from there, applying it to doctrinal truths.

This was the key for me correcting my beliefs about passages such as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.

So far not my experience...the four points do argue a lot with the five points thought.

I "converted" a lot of people to Calvinism, and the last bitter pill for me and others was Limited Atonement. People struggle with the idea that Christ died only for a particular amount of people, and rightfully so.

Chopper is an example of this, right here on this forum.

That is exactly right my friend. I have always had a big question mark with free will. There are times when I believe that there is no such thing. I am a four point Calvinist. That theory, doctrine, has a person pre-determined by God to be a follower of His, thus? no free will. The five pointer believes the same for the unsaved, no free will.

 

[Stan1953]

I don't see how to fix it since I have no editing capabilities. Sorry. Perhaps you could say what your points are or where you differ, I think I'll get it.

You have to go back into it to edit it then ensure my post is between the 'quote= and the /quote codes in the [ and ] brackets like all are.

 

[Stan1953]

It's a bit of a long story, but ultimately it was because I turned to the Scripture without looking through the eyes of a Calvinist, but rather tried to look at it in it's 1st Century context. Then from there, applying it to doctrinal truths.

Which I have always felt was the only way. The Holy Spirit has to show you the truth in scripture. As I have stated, I never knew about Arminianism until I started debating Calvinists.

This was the key for me correcting my beliefs about passages such as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.

Can you elaborate a little?

I "converted" a lot of people to Calvinism, and the last bitter pill for me and others was Limited Atonement. People struggle with the idea that Christ died only for a particular amount of people, and rightfully so.
Chopper is an example of this, right here on this forum.

Which is exactly why there are so many four point Calvinists I guess.
Chopper my buddy!

 

[agua.]

God's overall plan

What I mean is that God is bringing forth children unto Himself and that these children are brought forth out of corruption. Mankind takes God for granted usurping what is God's in vanity. Like the prodigal son, we must find out what it is we had all along but could not appreciate until we lost it. The prodigal son returns with a new attitude towards his Father. For God has chosen the lowly things over the high things so that no one may glory, but that God alone is glorified. We are here in this world which will pass away. It is not eternal. Here is where we learn how to appreciate all that is good by experiencing the absence of such goodness in all forms of depravity and the attributable consequences.

Oh oky doky. It seemed to imply a pre-flesh existence thanks for explaining.