Arminians, how does this work?

[CrowCross]

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?

I am not an Arninian.

 

[ReverendRV]

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?

God Pricks the Heart...

 

[brightfame52]

God Pricks the Heart...

Thats a blessing of regeneration, when the Spirit works in us to bring us to Faith in Christ.

 

[Josheb]

I am not an Arninian.

I know.

Which means, as I pointed out to you earlier, everything you have to offer in this thread from your soteriology is off-topic. I asked you about, and I specifically invited you to contribute op-relevantly. This op specifically asks about Arminianism, not some other doctrine of salvation - and I have asked you about that, nothing more and nothing else. Look at Post #42. An ardent monergism can answer the question asked and do so from an Arminian pov. Were I to ask @ReverendRV to elaborate I have every confidence he can and will further his contribution, writing from an Arminian and not a Calvinist, Wesleyan, Provisionist, or Pelagian point of view. Not only do I have confidence in his ability and willingness to do so, I am further confident he would do so collaboratively, kindly, patiently, and it would take many, many, many posts before I was subjected to obfuscation, fallacy, and personal derision. A poster does not have to be Arminian to offer and Arminian answer if s/he knows Arminian soteriology correctly. I did so. Rev did so. You are not doing so.

You were asked.

So go back and re-read the lengthy exchange with me keeping in mind I have known all along you are not Arminian but this op is explicitly about the Arminian answer to a single question.

And then answer the question asked.

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

If an answer to that question is not going to be attempted, then why trade posts with me or anyone else in the thread?

Arminians, can you describe with scriptural proof God’s work before regeneration to get man’s flesh to believe?

It's a fairly straight-forward question inherently couched in the Arminian response.

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


.

 

[Josheb]

God Pricks the Heart...

Thank you for that answer, and thank you for setting an example by offering an answer from an Arminian pov. I'll ask the same questions I earlier asked our other brother...

1. Would you please define the term "prick" or the phrase, "pricks the heart," in a manner consistent with Arminian soteriology?
2. How is that representative of Arminian soteriology (and not Pelagian, Traditionalist, or Provisionist) soteriology?
3. Where would we find that explicitly asserted in scripture?

Looking forward to reading the answers to the questions asked .

.

 

[CrowCross]

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

Long sigh.....the Arminian will often quote John 6:44. I disagree with their interpretation.
They use the word "draw" as to mean "wooing"...like here kitty, kitty, kitty.

Happy?

 

[Josheb]

Long sigh.....the Arminian will often quote John 6:44. I disagree with their interpretation.
They use the word "draw" as to mean "wooing"...like here kitty, kitty, kitty.

Happy?

My happiness is irrelevant to this discussion but were it germane a conversation without out all the snot would make me happy. And answers to the questions asked YOU many posts ago would be a vast improvement over everything I have received since then. I'll add a third relevant to Post 46.

1. How is that specifically representative of Arminian soteriology (and not Pelagian, Traditionalist, or Provisionist) soteriology?
2. Where would we find that explicitly asserted in scripture?
3. Would you please define the term "'wooing'... like here kitty, kitty, kitty," in a manner consistent with Arminian soteriology (because that phrase could be read in a variety of ways, by a variety of synergists?

 

[Carbon]

Long sigh.....the Arminian will often quote John 6:44. I disagree with their interpretation.
They use the word "draw" as to mean "wooing"...like here kitty, kitty, kitty.

Happy?

Yes, I believe you are right. This is why they believe everyone is drawn.

 

[Carbon]

It's a fairly straight-forward question inherently couched in the Arminian response.

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

Yes, pretty straight forward and a very simple question at that.

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you for that answer, and thank you for setting an example by offering an answer from an Arminian pov. I'll ask the same questions I earlier asked our other brother...

1. Would you please define the term "prick" or the phrase, "pricks the heart," in a manner consistent with Arminian soteriology?
2. How is that representative of Arminian soteriology (and not Pelagian, Traditionalist, or Provisionist) soteriology?
3. Where would we find that explicitly asserted in scripture?

Looking forward to reading the answers to the questions asked .

.

The Pricking of the Heart would be the Circumcision of the Heart; but I think the Circumcision of the Ear precedes the Circumcision of the Heart in Logical Order...

But I think Arminianism likes Illumination more. The Light shines in a dark place; and we would do Good to pay attention to it; like the Dawning of the Day when the Morning Star rises in your Heart...

As a Calvinist, it's not easy for me to defend Arminianism; but we should try to understand it...

 

[Josheb]

Yes, pretty straight forward and a very simple question at that.

Yep.

The challenge for both Arm and Cal (and any other non-Arms) is accurately portraying Arminianism. I've long said the first single greatest problem in the soteriology debate is each side getting their own side incorrect! The second biggest problem is that of getting the other side's views correct. Wesleyans, Traditionalists, Provisionists, and Pelagians all mistake their views as Arminian. They post as Arminian and when any discrepancy is pointe out then ad hominem ensues. The third biggest problem is the failure of properly discriminating audience affiliations of the scripture. That manifests itself most commonly with the practice of taking epistolary verses about the saved and applying them to the unsaved, or taking scriptures written about a covenant people and attempting to apply them to non-covenant people. The fourth biggest problem is that of diversity within each side. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is monolithic. There is a core orthodoxy within each viewpoint and when views are expressed that depart from that core orthodoxy then those views are no longer Arm or Cal; they are something different. The perverse end of monergism is strict determinism and the perverse end of synergism is strict autonomy. People in the extreme end do not see those views as outliers (normative and statistical). It's a little more difficult for the synergist because Arminius' "territory is fairly well staked out. Arminius wrote quite specifically on many points and for that reason Arminius can be differentiated from Wesleyanism or Provisionism. We do not generally make those kinds of distinctions between Calvinists because the core orthodoxy (like TULIP) is more commonly shared. We do not generally talk about Pinkism, Spurgeonism, Sproulism or Framism. None of them (with the possible exception of Pink) departed from orthodox Calvinism the way Wesley, Flowers, and others have departed from Arminius.

So..... when a Catholic broaches John 6:44 and then two other non-Arms follow that "lead," it sets the course for the thread (at least until an authentic Arminian shows up to answer the question as an Arminian because I kind of doubt they'd start with John 6:44. Why start God's work with John 6:44 if you're Arminian? Is instigating the discussion with John 6:44 a reflection of non-Arm bias? Roger Olsen, for example, might start with Romans 10:14-17! I am fairly confident we have all discussed the "causal hearing" interpretation with Arms, Weses, Trads, and Pels. I, personally, think it is fair Cals to portray the Arminian "drawing" as "here, kitty, kitty," and "wooing" BUT only when some evidence that is how Arminius viewed it is provided. It is not okay for non-Arms to define terms for Arms. Monergists do not like it when synergists re-define IG or PoS . It's not okay to assert a a falsehood and then argue against it as an accurate representation of another's views.

Hence my subsequent inquiries.

1. How is that specifically representative of Arminian soteriology (and not Pelagian, Traditionalist, or Provisionist) soteriology?
2. Where would we find that explicitly asserted in scripture?
3. Would you please define the term "'wooing'... like here kitty, kitty, kitty," in a manner consistent with Arminian soteriology (because that phrase could be read in a variety of ways, by a variety of synergists?

Because the first poster to broach Jn. 6:44 was RCC and a poster whose modus operandi is to constantly hijack other's ops and make them all about RCCism and not Arminianism.

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

Yes, pretty straight forward and a very simple question at that.

Yes, it is pretty straight forward and simple..... and, so far, we let a Catholic set the agenda. That's okay with me but surely Arminius would not have stared with John 6:44. Certainly other verses could be proof-texted (Jn. 8:36; Acts 16:14; 1 Cor. 4:7, 1 Cor. 15:10, 2 Cor. 3:17, etc.) and then explained Arminianly, because Arminius was an Augustinian adherent to TD he would have wholly affirmed 1 Cor 2:14 exactly as written! If John 6:44 is where we start then it is incumbent to remember Arminius held not all who are drawn (or enabled) by God to believe (and/or repent and act on that belief) choose to do so.

Arminians, can you describe with scriptural proof God’s work before regeneration to get man’s flesh to believe?

John 6:44 alone does NOT answer that question. More is required.

 

[Josheb]

The Pricking of the Heart would be the Circumcision of the Heart; but I think the Circumcision of the Ear precedes the Circumcision of the Heart in Logical Order...

I'm inclined to agree. Gimme the scriptures Arminius or an Arminian might use to support that content.

But I think Arminianism likes Illumination more. The Light shines in a dark place; and we would do Good to pay attention to it; like the Dawning of the Day when the Morning Star rises in your Heart...

Again, I am inclined to agree - except for that part about "doing good" because Arminius was a TDer - so gimme the scriptures an Arm would use to make that case.

As a Calvinist, it's not easy for me to defend Arminianism; but we should try to understand it...

Amen.

I do not know about you per se, but many of us used to be Arms (or synergists of other ilk ) and were quite polemic about it. We may have forgotten the "justification," but we did once know it. We can do the soteriology justice with a little work. We should definitely avoid straw men, especially since there don't seem to be any authentic Reformed Arminians (yet) in the thread.

• Pricking of the heart
• Circumcision of the ear
• Circumcision of the heart
• Additional illumination
• Rising in the (circumcised?) heart

Gimme the scriptures where you can.

 

[ReverendRV]

Gimme the scriptures where you can.

I'll Paste P1 of the List of Rules I wrote for Private Debates, to show that I don't like to be required to List Verses in a Discussion...

1) This is the Private Debate Board; only the agreed upon Participants are invited to Debates occurring here, though Members can Start their own Debate Threads. Before a Debate starts, all Participants should acknowledge they've read these Rules. Topics should be clearly defined, and pertain to Calvinism's Doctrines; or closely related Topics. Pasting a Linked Sentence or small Paragraph is allowed. Theology is a Valid form of Argumentation, and will not be called Eisegesis. A Verbatim Verse is not needed to Score Points, though Prooftexts ARE Biblical and will be allowed in a Debate. We all should know our Bible; if your Opponent alludes to a Verse without giving you a Citation, claiming no Scripture was given is out of bounds. Do not Arbitrarily dismiss your Opponent's Position. Bald Assertions as Answers, are Fallacious; such as, 'All Calvinism is Hyper Calvinism'. Staying on Topic is necessary, and changing the Subject can be considered a Foul (IE changing a Topic from Unconditional Election to Unconditional Reprobation, etc). Fouls may also be called for Rudeness, long Posts, not answering questions, etc; anything your Moderator considers to be out of Order under these ten Rules...

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-list-of-rules.1356/post-53951

You say I'm doing better here than most; thanks; but sometimes, a little is enough. Here lately I have a hard enough time wanting to spend a lot of time on Forums, because I'm a 'Cut to the Chase' kind of Guy; please just let me be myself...

 

[makesends]

Correction. The elect are those "who will accept the faith." Because at the appointed time they are placed in Christ by the Holy Spirit, and at that point it is irresistible.

Correction. The elect are those "who will receive the faith", it being given by the Spirit of God, at the appointed time.

 

[Josheb]

I'll Paste P1 of the List of Rules I wrote for Private Debates, to show that I don't like to be required to List Verses in a Discussion...

1) This is the Private Debate Board; only the agreed upon Participants are invited to Debates occurring here, though Members can Start their own Debate Threads. Before a Debate starts, all Participants should acknowledge they've read these Rules. Topics should be clearly defined, and pertain to Calvinism's Doctrines; or closely related Topics. Pasting a Linked Sentence or small Paragraph is allowed. Theology is a Valid form of Argumentation, and will not be called Eisegesis. A Verbatim Verse is not needed to Score Points, though Prooftexts ARE Biblical and will be allowed in a Debate. We all should know our Bible; if your Opponent alludes to a Verse without giving you a Citation, claiming no Scripture was given is out of bounds. Do not Arbitrarily dismiss your Opponent's Position. Bald Assertions as Answers, are Fallacious; such as, 'All Calvinism is Hyper Calvinism'. Staying on Topic is necessary, and changing the Subject can be considered a Foul (IE changing a Topic from Unconditional Election to Unconditional Reprobation, etc). Fouls may also be called for Rudeness, long Posts, not answering questions, etc; anything your Moderator considers to be out of Order under these ten Rules...

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-list-of-rules.1356/post-53951

You say I'm doing better here than most; thanks; but sometimes, a little is enough. Here lately I have a hard enough time wanting to spend a lot of time on Forums, because I'm a 'Cut to the Chase' kind of Guy; please just let me be myself...

Ugh. If that was a jest, then stick an emoji in there to indicate the rhetorical content. If that is serious then it's a mess.

No "requirement" for scripture was made. Therefore, the appeal to rule 1 is a red herring, and Rule 1 is being abused for the sake of avoidance. A request (not a requirement) for scripture was made specifically because that is what this op asks for....

Arminians, can you describe with scriptural proof God’s work before regeneration to get man’s flesh to believe?

The op, not me, explicitly asks for scriptural proof. If we used the "logic" employed in Post 53, then we would necessarily have to conclude the op violates Rule 1 of the forum's terms of use. Post 52's request(s) is op-relevant. Post 53 not. Furthermore, no one claimed "no scripture," no points are being scored, no one's position was arbitrarily dismissed, and no bald assertions were made about Post 42 or 50. The op asks for an answer with scriptural proof. I asked what the op asks: what scripture(s) might the Arminian use to prove pricking of the heart, circumcision of the ear, circumcision of the heart, additional illumination, and any subsequent rising of the heart. Rule 1 was abused, not correctly used, in Post 53.

@Carbon, Post 53 says this op violates forum Rule 1 because it requires posters to cite scripture and such requirements are prohibited.

You say I'm doing better here than most; thanks...

Given the hogwash of Post 53, I withdraw my appraisal, but the posters' relevant acumen is irrelevant to this discussion. The question being discussed is (in my own op-affirmed words) is...

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

; but sometimes, a little is enough.

Yes, a little scripture would suffice but Post 53 contains none. As a consequence, Post 42 and 50 end up being a brief list of baseless assertions (which, ironically, Rule 1 prohibits ) and the op's inquiry (description with scriptural proof) goes unanswered. Post 53 sabotages Post 42 and 50 in a decidedly not-cut-to-the-chase self-defeating (and self-indicting) way.

Here lately I have a hard enough time wanting to spend a lot of time on Forums, because I'm a 'Cut to the Chase' kind of Guy; please just let me be myself...

I do not care, and there is nothing "cut to the chase" about Post 53. There's nothing "cut to the chase" about an off-topic insinuation someone else is breaking the rules (that should have been handled according to the rules!). That is the antithesis of cut-to-the-chase and it does nothing to further the op-relevant discussion of what was otherwise some astute observations! Ironically, if the degree of scriptural knowledge assumed of all posters in Rule 1 is possessed then it would have taken less time and less effort to list a scripture for each point than it did to go to the forum rules page and copy and paste the rule into this thread. Post 53 is an off-topical and direct resistance to what the op asks of us all: a scriptural proof!

• Pricking of the heart (Acts 2 speaks of people being pricked in the heart at Pentecost; Psalm 73 speaks similarly)
• Circumcision of the ear (Jeremiah 5 or 6[?] and Acts 7 speak of the ears being circumcised)
• Circumcision of the heart (Romans 2 speaks profoundly about the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit and Paul is quoting from Deuteronomy)
• Additional illumination (lots of verses about illumination but I am inclined to start with Psalm 18 or 119)
• Rising in the (circumcised?) heart (not sure about this one; perhaps Romans 10 or 1 John 4 or 5)

I did that from memory. It took me less than 95 seconds. I do not know for a fact those are the verses that any given individual would use, but they are verses an Arminian committing the "third biggest" error I cited in Post 51 might employ. I might even have some of them incorrect since I did not take the time to verify. I'd have to cue up Bible Hub and find the specific verse(s). My doing so could/would help all the posters here better understand the Arminian argument (and its flaws). The opportunity to help everyone here availed itself and, instead, the response is and misguided appeal to Rule 1.

Post 53 is very bad form and the request(s) of Post 52 could have been handled in a myriad of much more functional and edifying ways than to misuse and abuse the forum's tou.

Thank you for your time.

.

 

[David1701]

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?

Arminians (of which I'm definitely not one) talk about "prevenient grace" (meaning grace given by God, to sinners, before they are saved, allegedly to enable (not cause) them to believe the gospel).

They cite, as alleged scriptural support, verses such as Jn. 6:44.

Jn. 6:44 (WPNT) No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

They focus on the first clause of this verse, pointing to God's drawing and claiming that this is part of what enables the sinner to believe. Sadly, for them, the second clause knocks this nonsense on the head, since it shows that the drawing is effectual (the one drawn will be raised up at the last day).

They also claim Acts 16:14 as supporting "prevenient grace".

Acts 16:14 A certain woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God, really listened, whose heart the Lord opened to give heed to the things spoken by Paul.

We should note, again, that God's grace here is effectual, not some mere enabling as the Arminians claim.

Another of their proof texts is Jn 16:8.

Jn. 16:7-11
7 Nevertheless I am telling you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, because if I don’t go away the Helper will not come to you, but if I do go I will send Him to you.
8 “Now when He comes he will convict the world about sin and about righteousness and about judgment:
9 first about sin, because they don’t believe into me;
10 then about righteousness, because I am going away to my Father and you will no longer see me;
11 then about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

What we need to note here, is that there is nothing about any enabling of the ones so convicted; nor is there even any suggesting that the conviction is intended for that purpose.

See below for a link to an Arminian video about some of their proof texts.

Arminian Claims about Prevenient Grace

 

[Josheb]

Arminians (of which I'm definitely not one) talk about "prevenient grace" (meaning grace given by God, to sinners, before they are saved, allegedly to enable (not cause) them to believe the gospel).

They cite, as alleged scriptural support, verses such as Jn. 6:44.

Jn. 6:44 (WPNT) No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

They focus on the first clause of this verse, pointing to God's drawing and claiming that this is part of what enables the sinner to believe. Sadly, for them, the second clause knocks this nonsense on the head, since it shows that the drawing is effectual (the one drawn will be raised up at the last day).

They also claim Acts 16:14 as supporting "prevenient grace".

Acts 16:14 A certain woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God, really listened, whose heart the Lord opened to give heed to the things spoken by Paul.

We should note, again, that God's grace here is effectual, not some mere enabling as the Arminians claim.

Another of their proof texts is Jn 16:8.

Jn. 16:7-11
7 Nevertheless I am telling you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, because if I don’t go away the Helper will not come to you, but if I do go I will send Him to you.
8 “Now when He comes he will convict the world about sin and about righteousness and about judgment:
9 first about sin, because they don’t believe into me;
10 then about righteousness, because I am going away to my Father and you will no longer see me;
11 then about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

What we need to note here, is that there is nothing about any enabling of the ones so convicted; nor is there even any suggesting that the conviction is intended for that purpose.

See below for a link to an Arminian video about some of their proof texts.

Arminian Claims about Prevenient Grace

Well done, @David1701.

And thank you very much for setting an example . I, personally, do not mind the inclusion of the monergist view(s) punctuating that post but I would like to emphasize remind the everyone about the specific point being asked about in the op: God's work, and God's work prior to regeneration., and even more specifically the work of God that gets the unregenerate sinner to believe.

Arminianism is a bit weak on that specific point. It is acknowledged, "God works," and "God works to bring a person to belief," and "God works prior to regeneration to draw a sinner to Him and enable that sinner to believe," but that is all still very vague and lacking in substance. The more volitional soteriologies have run with the premise of innate faculties not corrupted by sin because they deny TD, but this op is not about any volitionalism other than Arminianism and Arminius was an Augustinian adherent of TD.

They focus on the first clause of this verse, pointing to God's drawing and claiming that this is part of what enables the sinner to believe. Sadly, for them, the second clause knocks this nonsense on the head, since it shows that the drawing is effectual (the one drawn will be raised up at the last day).

So..... how does the Arminian get around that fact of scripture - the fact explicitly stated in the verse to which they themselves appeal? To what scripture do/must the appeal to prove God works in the unregenerate to get the unregenerate sinner's flesh to believe?

We should note, again, that God's grace here is effectual, not some mere enabling as the Arminians claim.

Yes, but speaking from the Arminian pov the effectiveness of God is not necessarily in dispute in Arminianism; it's just not considered at this point and/or if it is considered then it is considered in the context of what we typically think of as a strictly Reformed point of view: God is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin AND God is also glorified when He - by grace - saves some who would not otherwise be saved. The difference is the Arminian predicates the outcome on the (supposedly) enabled choice to believe. What often goes unstated is that makes God dependent on the sinner. This is addressed (irrationally) with claims God has withheld His power, or God has willingly subordinated Himself or limited Himself to this condition He decided upon and created. This is why the specific question asked in the op is so important and so very illuminating: How does God's work get the unregenerate sinner to believe.

I am surprised no Arminian has showed up to argue, "God does not 'get' the unregenerate sinner to believe. The premise is a red herring," even though that is the necessarily logical necessity of God working if they also claim God is effective.

What we need to note here, is that there is nothing about any enabling of the ones so convicted; nor is there even any suggesting that the conviction is intended for that purpose.

So how does the Arminian use scripture to prove what's needed given that shortcoming?

Let's remember our fellow Arminians are not idiots. They may have accepted a doctrine because it sounds correct to them, but they are not lacking in intelligence, nor entirely absent a scriptural case for what they believe. That Acts 16:14 is silent on "enabling," is self-evident (although strongholds and ideology often prevent seeing what is otherwise self-evident) is something an Arminian might acknowledge. That acknowledgment then places the Arm in the position of having to add to their case the scriptural proof God's work gets the unregenerate sinner to believe.


I know, so far, we're all Cals here (or non-Arm synergists) so we are all also posting as "devil's advocates" on behalf of the Arm pov to one degree or another. This is a good exercise. I invite any Arms lurking the thread to speak up and tell us the answers to these questions, tell the monergists where the monergists have argued red herrings and straw men.

We can handle it .

And discuss it .

And bow to the proof - if such a thing exists .



.

 

[David1701]

Well done, @David1701.

And thank you very much for setting an example . I, personally, do not mind the inclusion of the monergist view(s) punctuating that post but I would like to emphasize remind the everyone about the specific point being asked about in the op: God's work, and God's work prior to regeneration., and even more specifically the work of God that gets the unregenerate sinner to believe.

Arminianism is a bit weak on that specific point. It is acknowledged, "God works," and "God works to bring a person to belief," and "God works prior to regeneration to draw a sinner to Him and enable that sinner to believe," but that is all still very vague and lacking in substance. The more volitional soteriologies have run with the premise of innate faculties not corrupted by sin because they deny TD, but this op is not about any volitionalism other than Arminianism and Arminius was an Augustinian adherent of TD.

So..... how does the Arminian get around that fact of scripture - the fact explicitly stated in the verse to which they themselves appeal? To what scripture do/must the appeal to prove God works in the unregenerate to get the unregenerate sinner's flesh to believe?

Yes, but speaking from the Arminian pov the effectiveness of God is not necessarily in dispute in Arminianism; it's just not considered at this point and/or if it is considered then it is considered in the context of what we typically think of as a strictly Reformed point of view: God is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin AND God is also glorified when He - by grace - saves some who would not otherwise be saved. The difference is the Arminian predicates the outcome on the (supposedly) enabled choice to believe. What often goes unstated is that makes God dependent on the sinner. This is addressed (irrationally) with claims God has withheld His power, or God has willingly subordinated Himself or limited Himself to this condition He decided upon and created. This is why the specific question asked in the op is so important and so very illuminating: How does God's work get the unregenerate sinner to believe.

I am surprised no Arminian has showed up to argue, "God does not 'get' the unregenerate sinner to believe. The premise is a red herring," even though that is the necessarily logical necessity of God working if they also claim God is effective.

So how does the Arminian use scripture to prove what's needed given that shortcoming?

Let's remember our fellow Arminians are not idiots. They may have accepted a doctrine because it sounds correct to them, but they are not lacking in intelligence, nor entirely absent a scriptural case for what they believe. That Acts 16:14 is silent on "enabling," is self-evident (although strongholds and ideology often prevent seeing what is otherwise self-evident) is something an Arminian might acknowledge. That acknowledgment then places the Arm in the position of having to add to their case the scriptural proof God's work gets the unregenerate sinner to believe.


I know, so far, we're all Cals here (or non-Arm synergists) so we are all also posting as "devil's advocates" on behalf of the Arm pov to one degree or another. This is a good exercise. I invite any Arms lurking the thread to speak up and tell us the answers to these questions, tell the monergists where the monergists have argued red herrings and straw men.

We can handle it .

And discuss it .

And bow to the proof - if such a thing exists .



.

That part about Arminians not being idiots...

When I was very young in the faith, I used to think that we had free will (everyone around me said so, and they were all much more experienced, so I thought that they must know).

A little later, I came across a Presbyterian who believed in God's sovereignty in salvation. I could easily beat him in debate (he wasn't very well educated); but, I could see the flaws in my own answers, even if he couldn't answer them himself (also, he was humble and simply believed what the Bible said, which caused me to respect him). This frustrated me considerably; so, since I worked in a Christian bookshop, I availed myself of some of the material, to get backup.

I read a booklet by the well-respected Arminian, John R. Rice, called "Why I Disagree with all Five Points of Hyper-Calvinism". It was absolutely dreadful - I mean, incompetent beyond belief! I could not believe the idiotic arguments, out-of-context proof-texts, obvious pride and misrepresentations of this man. I'd read his booklet to get support; but, instead, it had undermined my confidence in free will (and its supporters) almost completely.

John R. Rice's idiotic booklet was one of the main elements (there were a few other important ones as well) that caused me to realise that God is entirely sovereign in salvation and that man's will is bound, not free (except in the sense of Compatibilism, but that knowledge came later).

I don't believe that J. R. Rice was an intellectual idiot; but, I do believe that his rejection of the truth, in this area, turned his thoughts into idiocy. This also goes for almost every Arminian with whom I've ever discussed this subject.

If one rejects the truth in an area, then, in that area, one becomes deceived. It's a scriptural principle; and it turns intelligent people into idiots, in that area in which they have been deceived.

 

[Josheb]

That part about Arminians not being idiots...

When I was very young in the faith, I used to think that we had free will (everyone around me said so, and they were all much more experienced, so I thought that they must know).

A little later, I came across a Presbyterian who believed in God's sovereignty in salvation. I could easily beat him in debate (he wasn't very well educated); but, I could see the flaws in my own answers, even if he couldn't answer them himself (also, he was humble and simply believed what the Bible said, which caused me to respect him). This frustrated me considerably; so, since I worked in a Christian bookshop, I availed myself of some of the material, to get backup.

I read a booklet by the well-respected Arminian, John R. Rice, called "Why I Disagree with all Five Points of Hyper-Calvinism". It was absolutely dreadful - I mean, incompetent beyond belief! I could not believe the idiotic arguments, out-of-context proof-texts, obvious pride and misrepresentations of this man. I'd read his booklet to get support; but, instead, it had undermined my confidence in free will (and its supporters) almost completely.

John R. Rice's idiotic booklet was one of the main elements (there were a few other important ones as well) that caused me to realise that God is entirely sovereign in salvation and that man's will is bound, not free (except in the sense of Compatibilism, but that knowledge came later).

I don't believe that J. R. Rice was an intellectual idiot; but, I do believe that his rejection of the truth, in this area, turned his thoughts into idiocy. This also goes for almost every Arminian with whom I've ever discussed this subject.

If one rejects the truth in an area, then, in that area, one becomes deceived. It's a scriptural principle; and it turns intelligent people into idiots, in that area in which they have been deceived.

I've had a similar experience but in the early days my debates with Cals proved more like fruitless draws. My reading of Olson, Hunt, walls and others were similarly paradoxical in their effect because between the strawmen and the sloppy reasoning scripture became clearer in rendering the monergistic pov.

.....it turns intelligent people into idiots........

Ima use that

, in that area in which they have been deceived.

I am not convinced it qualifies as deception; at least not until it reaches the level of Flowers and Pelagius.

 

[David1701]

I've had a similar experience but in the early days my debates with Cals proved more like fruitless draws. My reading of Olson, Hunt, walls and others were similarly paradoxical in their effect because between the strawmen and the sloppy reasoning scripture became clearer in rendering the monergistic pov.

Ima use that

I am not convinced it qualifies as deception; at least not until it reaches the level of Flowers and Pelagius.

In a sense, all mistakes in understanding scripture are deception (not necessarily deliberate or serious), all the more so, when they are the result of rejecting the truth.

One example (not from rejecting the truth) would be when I heard an Elim pastor in Edinburgh, during his sermon, explain the meaning of a particular English word in the original Greek (I forget which one). The trouble was that the English word used in the translation he'd looked up was used, in different places, to translate two different Greek words, with different meanings. He had been sloppy and picked the wrong Greek word (I knew because I'd looked up that exact word, from the same verse, the night before). So, he was deceived by his carelessness.

It was not a particularly serious error, but it does show that being deceived is not always from some crafty false teacher, but can result from simple mistakes. We all need to be on our guard.