Arminians, how does this work?

[donadams]

Who said anything about surrendering? Misrepresenting others' posts (as Post #13 does) is no better than misrepresenting scripture.

You're still dodging the point: ALL the verses you've used are explicitly about those already saved. Please look at the verses for yourself and acknowledge the mistake so we can collaboratively move on to other matters and use scripture better. Your argument in your posts in this thread amounts to the following...

• Apples are an igneous animal.
• Igneous animals exist due to the oscillating curvature of Zimbabwe's rotation around Pluto.
• Therefore, salvation is Arminian.

In other words, the argument you've attempted to present is nonsense. Scripture about the already saved cannot be used to describe the never saved. Non-believers are, by definition, NOT believers. This is ontological. It's axiomatic. The logic is tautological. What you're doing is neither scriptural nor logical (scripture is never illogical) AND you're refusing to change the practice of misusing scripture even after the issue has been pointed out. The problem is identical to applying pre-Genesis 3:6 conditions to a post-Genesis 3:6 Adam. There was a time when Adam was good, unashamed, and sinless but that all changed when Adam disobeyed God. In that moment Adam became not-good, ashamed, and sinful. The before and after Adam are not identical; there are ontological, teleological, and existential differences between the two (pre-disobedient and post-disobedient Adam). What you've done in this thread is the reverse: you've taken post-salvific believers and posted as if they are identical to never saved non-believers, and done so based on a bad exegesis, an eisegesis that grossly mmishandles scripture.

Which is why I've asked you to acknowledge the error of apply post-salvific scripture to pre-salvific conditions.


This op is about Arminianism's position God works to cause belief prior to regeneration. In other words, this op is NOT about the RCC doctrine of salvation. This op is not about Pelagian view of salvation, either. This op is not about the Traditionalist or Provisionist view of faith before regeneration, either. In other words, you have not posted a single word that is op relevant, and everyone has been kind and patient and forbearing while you abuse the op, scripture, and others' posts. If you do not know what Arminian soteriology teaches, then you've got no business in this thread, much less justification for hijacking the thread to argue Catholic soteriology. If you can provide proof of an Arminian view of "faith precedes regeneration" based on God's work in the non-believer then do so, but otherwise you're proving NOT to be a very good Arminian.

When someone makes the kind of errors you've repeatedly made (a gross mishandling of scripture that conflates fundamental categories confusing the unsaved with the saved) cogent topical conversation proves impossible. And that means you're either a troll, are so incompetent that you don't see the problem and can't have the conversation this op invites about Arminian soteriology. The solution is simple: Post and apply correctly-rendered scripture as an Arminian would OR join the monergists here and point out the errors in Arminian soteriology (the differences where Arminius departed from RCC soteriology). From the beginning of this thread the opportunity for you to join the dissent availed itself because this is one of the rare occasions where monergists and RCC synergists share common ground and you've refused to take advantage of the opportunity.

That is all this op asks. Nothing more. The op asks Arminians to describe the Arminian view. This op does NOT ask Catholics to describe the Catholic view.

I have previously suggested your posts do not reflect a very good view of Catholicism because of the poor handling of scripture and the occasional disparity between your posts and Catholic catechism and Catholic sources like Catholic Answers. I am currently on vacation and my best friend, a devout Catholic scholar, has accompanied me. I showed him your posts and his response was, "He needs to go back and re-attend his catechism classes."

"Sometimes the Church is accused of teaching 'salvation by works,' but this is an empty accusation. This idea has been consistently condemned by the Church. Good works are required by God because he requires obedience to his commands (Mt 6:1-21, 1 Cor 3:8, 13-15) and promises to reward us with eternal life if we obey (Mt 25:34-40, Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10, Jas 1:12). But even our obedience is impossible without God’s grace; even our good works are God’s gift (Rom 5:5, Phil 2:13). This is the real biblical plan of salvation."​

Salvation comes through Jesus alone. His work, his mediation, grace, repentance, faith, baptism, and works are ALL gifts from God, according to RC soteriology. In other words, you had the opportunity to present an argument pointing out the problems with Arminian soteriology, an opportunity to join the op and ask for proof of God working to produce faith before regeneration in a synergistic manner and didn't do it.

"The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God’s grace—completely unmerited by works—that one is saved."​

• You handle scripture badly.
• You handle Catholic doctrine badly.
• You handle others' posts badly.
• You do all three even after bad examples are noted for your benefit in hopes of godly change.

That makes you either a troll or incompetent. So, please, start over. Re-read the op and think about what this op is asking. Then post op-relevantly with well-rendered scripture (or move on to another op because this op is asking specifically about an Arminian view, not a Catholic one).




.

Have a good vacation

118. Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo.

Does this include all works?

No hurry

 

[donadams]

What does the word translated as "draw" actually mean?
Does it pertain to a wooing....here kitty, kitty, kitty...or a "dragging" such as the word is used concerning Paul in later passages such as Acts 16:19 and Acts 21:30?

Actual grace

D for dogma catholic and divine faith

109. There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.

 

[CrowCross]

Three replies:

1. How is that representative of Arminian soteriology (and not Pelagian, Traditionalist, or Provisionist) soteriology?
2. Where would we find that explicitly asserted in scripture?
3. That would still contradict RCC soteriology (according to the two RC articles to which I linked the readers).

Both monergistic soteriology and Roman Catholic soteriology intellectual assent is neither salvific nor causal to salvation..... AND the "open" "possibility" of Post 19 cannot be construed to contradict the reality God salves many who've never heard the gospel prior to salvation (just covering the base).

God saves in many ways. My post presented one scenario.
My post presented a scenario of how a man could have heard the gospel and paid it no never mind...yet the concept was in their mind.
When they were saved then the concept came to the front of their mind. Does it work like that in all people? No.

 

[Josheb]

Have a good vacation

118. Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo.

Does this include all works?

No hurry

Relevance to the op?

 

[Josheb]

God saves in many ways. My post presented one scenario.

Yep

My post presented a scenario of how a man could have heard the gospel and paid it no never mind...yet the concept was in their mind.

....in a non-salvific manner.

When they were saved then the concept came to the front of their mind.

Perhaps, but the neither the "concept" nor the understanding thereof is salvific. If the concept comes to the front of their mind when saved, then they are already saved when the concept comes to the front of their mind. That's a post hoc (after the fact) condition, and one that is not instrumental in becoming salvation.

Does it work like that in all people? No.

Unless there's more to add the possession of the concept does not work toward becoming saved at all. Knowledge does not save and care must be taken so as not to fall into some form of Gnosticism (salvation by special knowledge).

I'm also wondering how and why the three questions I asked in Post #20 were completely ignored.

Three replies:

1. How is that representative of Arminian soteriology (and not Pelagian, Traditionalist, or Provisionist) soteriology?
2. Where would we find that explicitly asserted in scripture?
3. That would still contradict RCC soteriology (according to the two RC articles to which I linked the readers).

..............

Neither possession of a "concept" or intellectual assent is not salvific, especially not after the fact.

• How is post #19 Arminian?
• Where would we find Post #19 asserted in scripture (as a means of explaining what is asked in this op)?
• Isn't Post #19 still agreeing with me that @donadams' argument is faulty?

?????

 

[donadams]

Relevance to the op?

No it’s just a thread
“It’s all good” “the more the better” that’s my philosophy

Carbon’s thread he’s not complaining

Any one can ask answer or comment on any my threads
I don’t mind

 

[donadams]

Yep

....in a non-salvific manner.

Perhaps, but the neither the "concept" nor the understanding thereof is salvific. If the concept comes to the front of their mind when saved, then they are already saved when the concept comes to the front of their mind. That's a post hoc (after the fact) condition, and one that is not instrumental in becoming salvation.

Unless there's more to add the possession of the concept does not work toward becoming saved at all. Knowledge does not save and care must be taken so as not to fall into some form of Gnosticism (salvation by special knowledge).

I'm also wondering how and why the three questions I asked in Post #20 were completely ignored.


Neither possession of a "concept" or intellectual assent is not salvific, especially not after the fact.

• How is post #19 Arminian?
• Where would we find Post #19 asserted in scripture (as a means of explaining what is asked in this op)?
• Isn't Post #19 still agreeing with me that @donadams' argument is faulty?

?????

What happened to salvation is not a knowledge or a concept but a (((relationship)))?

Truth / doctrine Jn 14:6
Sacrifice / sacraments Jn 1:16-17 Jn 1:29
Christ is in His person is our salvation Lk 2:30

How can it be “faith alone” Christ is not only a doctrine or set of beliefs but He is our Passover sacrifice and He is our salvation, His person, Lk 2:30 I have seen my Salvation!
We must have union with Christ by faith and baptism. Mk 16:16

 

[CrowCross]

Perhaps, but the neither the "concept" nor the understanding thereof is salvific. If the concept comes to the front of their mind when saved, then they are already saved when the concept comes to the front of their mind. That's a post hoc (after the fact) condition, and one that is not instrumental in becoming salvation.

Could be...or comes to their mind as they are saved.

 

[Josheb]

Could be...or comes to their mind as they are saved.

...but does not causally come to their mind as they are saved. Yes?

 

[CrowCross]

...but does not causally come to their mind as they are saved. Yes?

What led up to your salvation and my salvation were both different.

 

[Josheb]

What led up to your salvation and my salvation were both different.

That implies there are two ways to salvation; one by grace and another by prior knowledge made understandable. The latter is gnostic. No caveats can be conceded by saying the comprehension is by grace. Are you sure that's the argument you want to be asserting as Arminian?

 

[CrowCross]

That implies there are two ways to salvation; one by grace and another by prior knowledge made understandable. The latter is gnostic. No caveats can be conceded by saying the comprehension is by grace. Are you sure that's the argument you want to be asserting as Arminian?

You can make it sound like that....but Jesus is the only way.
The point I was making is the way in which God may "prime your pump" prior to God regenerating you so you can understand the gospel once you are saved.

 

[Josheb]

You can make it sound like that

Oh, no! No sophistry will be tolerated, especially since YOU were the one claiming, "What led up to your salvation and my salvation were both different," as a viable response to this op's inquiry. I fully understand every individual is different and the circumstances of every individual's life is likewise different. Not once in this thread have I denied the knowledge of scripture, or what a person knows about the gospel suddenly makes sense, is understood, is correctly comprehended when the individual becomes saved. If it was thought I have anywhere posted, implied, or insinuated anything different, then my posts have been grossly misread (and need to be re-read for what they actually state). What I did state is that understanding/comprehension is post hoc; it occurs after the individual is saved and any understanding/comprehension an unsaved, dead-in-sin sinner with a hostile mind of flesh is not causal.

For some reason, "What led up to your salvation and my salvation were both different," seems to be thought a cogent response when it is not. What "led up" to a person's salvation is irrelevant because no one is saved by "what led up." Unsaved people are definitely NOT saved by knowledge or sudden post hoc comprehension of anything.

....but Jesus is the only way.

Yep. We are saved by grace through faith (in Christ) and this is not of ourselves. Faith is one of the many gifts Giod gives to those He saves.

The point I was making is the way in which God may "prime your pump" prior to God regenerating you so you can understand the gospel once you are saved.

And my response to that is the same: the "once you are saved," person is already saved! That is a post hoc, after the fact, understanding, and it has absolutely no causality in becoming or getting saved. Once a person is saved a variety of events and conditions ensue. Prior to salvation, the unsaved has none of what is provided by God once a person is saved! That "once a person is saved" person is a saved person, not an unsaved person. The saved person understands many things the not-saved person does not. Previously held knowledge that is not understood does not save.


Knowledge made understood once a person is saved is monergism, not synergism.

 

[Carbon]

(((We are not loveless robots)))

Thks

I agree.

 

[Carbon]

Joh 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

"drawing" isn't an indication of absolute success. Many are drawn and many are do not follow through.

Your interpretation is in error. Do you have any scripture to back that up?

 

[CrowCross]

Oh, no! No sophistry will be tolerated, especially since YOU were the one claiming, "What led up to your salvation and my salvation were both different," as a viable response to this op's inquiry. I fully understand every individual is different and the circumstances of every individual's life is likewise different. Not once in this thread have I denied the knowledge of scripture, or what a person knows about the gospel suddenly makes sense, is understood, is correctly comprehended when the individual becomes saved. If it was thought I have anywhere posted, implied, or insinuated anything different, then my posts have been grossly misread (and need to be re-read for what they actually state). What I did state is that understanding/comprehension is post hoc; it occurs after the individual is saved and any understanding/comprehension an unsaved, dead-in-sin sinner with a hostile mind of flesh is not causal.

For some reason, "What led up to your salvation and my salvation were both different," seems to be thought a cogent response when it is not. What "led up" to a person's salvation is irrelevant because no one is saved by "what led up." Unsaved people are definitely NOT saved by knowledge or sudden post hoc comprehension of anything.

Yep. We are saved by grace through faith (in Christ) and this is not of ourselves. Faith is one of the many gifts Giod gives to those He saves.

And my response to that is the same: the "once you are saved," person is already saved! That is a post hoc, after the fact, understanding, and it has absolutely no causality in becoming or getting saved. Once a person is saved a variety of events and conditions ensue. Prior to salvation, the unsaved has none of what is provided by God once a person is saved! That "once a person is saved" person is a saved person, not an unsaved person. The saved person understands many things the not-saved person does not. Previously held knowledge that is not understood does not save.


Knowledge made understood once a person is saved is monergism, not synergism.

How do some put it??? I believe it's caled...head knowledge and heart knowledge.

 

[Josheb]

How do some put it??? I believe it's caled...head knowledge and heart knowledge.

I do not know or care how "some" put it. Correctly understood the head and heart are never in conflict with one another when it comes to scripture, sound doctrine, and sound practice. Post 36 is, therefore, another red herring.

How does the Arminian describe, with scriptural proof, God’s work before regeneration to get man’s flesh to believe?

And...

Why does it take more than three dozen posts to get the answer to that question?

 

[CrowCross]

I do not know or care how "some" put it. Correctly understood the head and heart are never in conflict with one another when it comes to scripture, sound doctrine, and sound practice. Post 36 is, therefore, another red herring.

How does the Arminian describe, with scriptural proof, God’s work before regeneration to get man’s flesh to believe?

And...

Why does it take more than three dozen posts to get the answer to that question?

Why are you always so right on every issue....and everyone else is wrong?

 

[Josheb]

Why are you always so right on every issue....and everyone else is wrong?

Never happened. Nice attempt at an off-topic ad hominem, though.


Once again.....,

How does the Arminian describe, with scriptural proof, God’s work before regeneration to get man’s flesh to believe?

 

[brightfame52]

Joh 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

"drawing" isn't an indication of absolute success. Many are drawn and many are do not follow through.

False, those drawn will believe because they are regenerated by the Spirit and are persuaded