Do you agree with this arminian statement?

[Drew]

Hello Dave:

I read the article you posted and found it to be a little hard to follow. The parts that I thought that I understood were unconvincing – there are a lot of hidden assumptions. I won’t go into more detail in this post.

I hold it to be a self-evident truth that the notion of punishment is only sensible where there is “freedom to act morallyâ€Â. And an eternity in the torment of hell certainly sounds like punishment to me. Now in another thread, you wrote the following: “God does not elect the unregenerate to damnation. He passes them by, leaving them in their unregenerate state, and thus allows them to suffer the destiny that they earned..." Let’s analyze what the concept “earned†really means – after all it must mean something, you presumably did not frivolously add the phrase “that they earnedâ€Â.

I just cannot make sense of the notion of earning punishment if I, as an agent that can act in the world, and as a possible recipient of punishment, do not have the freedom to choose to act righteously. And if I understand you correctly, you hold that we are all born with a nature that prohibits our acting righteously. Being born a certain way is not any kind of choice and there is no legitimate grounds for imputing guilt to someone who is “born to sin†than there is grounds to blame someone for being born with nine toes.

It seems to me that Calvinists often deploy the following kind of argument: We deserve our punishment because we indeed act freely in the sense that it is only our desires, not our specific actions, that are “pre-determined†by our sinful nature. Such a Calvinist is trying to appease the deeply held human intuition that punishment is only deserved if there is freedom to choose to act one way as opposed to another. Fair enough. But then the Calvinist maintains that our desires, our inclinations, are “born into us†and that such desires cannot be overcome by any act of the will (i.e. our wills are enslaved).

But such a Calvinist wants it both ways: he wants to claim our punishment is earned by granting that our actions are free but he also then applies the restriction that our desires and inclinations are necessarily evil. Well, this is like trying to argue that I deserve punishment for eating Mother’s apple pie off the window ledge simply because I had the “freedom†to do something else. However, if that “something ele†cannot be anything except another evil act, the whole claim that I have freedom to act otherwise is effectively turned into a sham.

 

[Dave...]

Drew

You don't have to believe Calvinists, just believe the Bible. Forget the whole article and key on the scripture given. Knowing that the bible is infallible, we only need to recognize all the scripture that applies and find the correct interpretation of them. There should be harmony with all the Bible if we have the correct interpretation.

http://www.custance.org/old/grace/ch5.html

"* In Luke 13:24 the Lord seems to speak of many who "will seek to enter in and shall not be able," as though men did indeed desire salvation but were refused. The answer to this apparent anomaly seems to lie in the fact that these many individuals did indeed wish to enter in--but on their own terms. Like the man who crashed the gate of the wedding and sat down to enjoy the feast--but without the appropriate wedding garment, such improper entry can result only in being rejected as soon as the King discovers their presence (Matt. 22:11-13). It is interesting to see that the individual in this little story knew perfectly well he was in the wrong place and had no excuse. He was speechless. And it is also significant perhaps that it was by this little story that the Lord introduced one of the most famous of all passages to be quoted in connection with Election: "For many are called, but few are chosen" (v. 14)."

A faith that is under Grace, meaning that the faith itself is a gift from God, is the only true faith. The faith that claims "I did it, I made the choice on my own" so as to suggest a claim in doing themselves part of the Golden Chain of Redemption, is only a faith that is rooted in the flesh. A faith "on their own terms" is no faith at all. I fear that many who fall for this idolatry will hear the words "I never knew you, depart from me". This would fit perfectly with their nature in being unable to come to Christ without terms to be met, in other words, they refused to deny self, they refused to lose their life so they may gain it, they could not let go of their desires. This is dangerous ground to be walking.

 

[Drew]

A faith that is under Grace, meaning that the faith itself is a gift from God, is the only true faith. The faith that claims "I did it, I made the choice on my own" so as to suggest a claim in doing themselves part of the Golden Chain of Redemption, is only a faith that is rooted in the flesh. A faith "on their own terms" is no faith at all. I fear that many who fall for this idolatry will hear the words "I never knew you, depart from me". This would fit perfectly with their nature in being unable to come to Christ without terms to be met, in other words, they refused to deny self, they refused to lose their life so they may gain it, they could not let go of their desires. This is dangerous ground to be walking.

I am sorry but I think it is fairly clear that the above is not at all a fair and reasonable representation of the kind of things some of us "Arminians" believe. The analogy that I would use is one where someone tosses a drowning man a rope. The drowning victim does "participate" in his rescue by choosing to grasp the rope. Only the most awkward interpretation of such an event would involve a suggestion that the drowning man has not received a gift of grace or that it his "work".

I must be quite adamant that it is patently unfair to shift this kind of Arminian position into a "salvation on their own terms". How is the drowning man asking for "salvation from drowning on his own terms" when he does the tiny little free will act of grasping the rope?

In addition, there is clearly no warrant to suggest that an Arminian who accepts this "grab the rope" model of salvation is necessarily not willing to deny self, not willing to let go of their desires.

From other posts I have made, you should remember that I believe that we need to be drawn by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I should have made it more clear that the only "contribution" that we make "on our own" is to accept this gift. I am sorry if I did not make this more clear. However, I suspect that this would not make any difference, since I suspect your position is that any little contribution by us is inconsistent with your reading of the Biblical texts.

I would like to conclude with a direct question: Is it intelligible (sensible, reasonable, understandable, etc.) to you as a person to punish someone for acts that they had no freedom to avoid doing? If you think this is an unfair question (e.g. because you think it implicitly misrepresents your position), then I would ask that you please at least comment on the very specific content of my previous post (where I argue that Calvinists want to have it "both ways").