Surrendering the case is not victory
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.
Arminians, can you describe with scriptural proof God’s work before regeneration to get man’s flesh to believe?
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.
- 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).
.
(josh pulls up a chair)
