God won't violate man's will?

[Carbon]

have you read A Hokema's work on sanctification? I think you would at least like it.

@Josheb
Matter of fact you might agree with Hokema. Being Dutch reformed, he's pretty close to Forde, but there is a difference I think you would appreciate.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I believe I have given the difference between the Calvinist belief and the Arminian belief of total depravity.

As far as Sanctification is concerned, I'm 85% Forde and 15% Hokema.
Curious, have you read A Hokema's work on sanctification? I think you would at least like it.

I like Hokema. I haven't the chance to read Forde yet. Hey brother, as were discussing this yesterday. The Classical Arminian position on TD and Prevenient Grace contradict each other. This and other reasons is why I recanted Classical Arminianism and became a Classical Reformed Calvinist. What's very interesting though is Arminius himself states without regeneration of the Holy Spirit by God in Christ Jesus, no sinner will possess the faculty to think, will, desire God.

The Arminian will respond by saying they believe in Prevenient Grace and insist this must come before man's so-called willful choice. But how do they explain how this prevenient grace doesn't interfere in violating man's will? Well, PG isn't effectual in saving anyone, they will say. Okay, so then obvious question to ask is what then is the cause of man's salvation if it isn't Grace? They will say it's them making a choice; this little work outside of God's Grace that is found in the inherent goodness of man. Sounds like Pelagianism to me.​

 

[ReverendRV]

I like Hokema. I haven't the chance to read Forde yet. Hey brother, as were discussing this yesterday. The Classical Arminian position on TD and Prevenient Grace contradict each other. This and other reasons is why I recanted Classical Arminianism and became a Classical Reformed Calvinist. What's very interesting though is Arminius himself states without regeneration of the Holy Spirit by God in Christ Jesus, no sinner will possess the faculty to think, will, desire God.

The Arminian will respond by saying they believe in Prevenient Grace and insist this must come before man's so-called willful choice. But how do they explain how this prevenient grace doesn't interfere in violating man's will? Well, PG isn't effectual in saving anyone, they will say. Okay, so then obvious question to ask is what then is the cause of man's salvation if it isn't Grace? They will say it's them making a choice; this little work outside of God's Grace that is found in the inherent goodness of man. Sounds like Pelagianism to me.​

Yes, most Arminians are not Arminius Arminians...

 

[Carbon]

I like Hokema.​

He's awesome!

I haven't the chance to read Forde yet.​

Forde is a Lutheran.

Hey brother, as were discussing this yesterday. The Classical Arminian position on TD and Prevenient Grace contradict each other. This and other reasons is why I recanted Classical Arminianism and became a Classical Reformed Calvinist. What's very interesting though is Arminius himself states without regeneration of the Holy Spirit by God in Christ Jesus, no sinner will possess the faculty to think, will, desire God.​

Okay

The Arminian will respond by saying they believe in Prevenient Grace and insist this must come before man's so-called willful choice. But how do they explain how this prevenient grace doesn't interfere in violating man's will? Well, PG isn't effectual in saving anyone, they will say. Okay, so then obvious question to ask is what then is the cause of man's salvation if it isn't Grace? They will say it's them making a choice; this little work outside of God's Grace that is found in the inherent goodness of man. Sounds like Pelagianism to me.​

They confused

 

[Ladodgers6]

Yes, most Arminians are not Arminius Arminians...

True, but most hold to it. Just ask them, I have and read a lot of their books. It's more humanistic centered. It's very close to Pelagianism.

 

[Carbon]

I like Hokema. I haven't the chance to read Forde yet. Hey brother, as were discussing this yesterday. The Classical Arminian position on TD and Prevenient Grace contradict each other. This and other reasons is why I recanted Classical Arminianism and became a Classical Reformed Calvinist. What's very interesting though is Arminius himself states without regeneration of the Holy Spirit by God in Christ Jesus, no sinner will possess the faculty to think, will, desire God.

The Arminian will respond by saying they believe in Prevenient Grace and insist this must come before man's so-called willful choice. But how do they explain how this prevenient grace doesn't interfere in violating man's will? Well, PG isn't effectual in saving anyone, they will say. Okay, so then obvious question to ask is what then is the cause of man's salvation if it isn't Grace? They will say it's them making a choice; this little work outside of God's Grace that is found in the inherent goodness of man. Sounds like Pelagianism to me.​

For Arminius (and most of his followers), a person must be graced by the Spirit of God in the overcoming of the depraved nature so that the person may be freed to believe in Christ Jesus, if he or she will. You see, he believed the wooing, drawing process could bring a person to the point that they can make a decision. They can overcome the depraved nature, not crucify it. And if such is finally not resisted, and accomplished, then, the sinner is regenerated. But he is not regenerated before he makes his decision. This is decisional regeneration. So the Spirit works with the natural man, bringing him to the place where he will make a decision. That's not scriptural.

 

[Carbon]

It's more humanistic centered. It's very close to Pelagianism.

Yep.

 

[Ladodgers6]

For Arminius (and most of his followers), a person must be graced by the Spirit of God in the overcoming of the depraved nature so that the person may be freed to believe in Christ Jesus, if he or she will.

Yes, but what is the ultimate cause if PG only enabled a person with the ability to believe or not. To put this another way if everyone receives PG according to them, but not everyone will believe and be saved. So what exactly does this PG do to sinners? Does it reveal the truth about God, it must so that they can have all the facts and make a decision. If PG gives them all the faculties to believe or not does this PG encounter illuminate their minds and opens their hearts. If they fully understand what's at stake by all this, why would anyone want to reject God and his offer to be saved and go to heaven? And if this PG is not full regeneration but only a partial regeneration how do they maintain it? Synergism teaches it's both Man & God working together.​

You see, he believed the wooing, drawing process could bring a person to the point that they can make a decision. They can overcome the depraved nature, not crucify it. And if such is finally not resisted, and accomplished, then, the sinner is regenerated. But he is not regenerated before he makes his decision. This is decisional regeneration. So the Spirit works with the natural man, bringing him to the place where he will make a decision. That's not scriptural.

Sounds a bit like Pelagianism trying to find inherent goodness in fallen man or not fallen but good man.

 

[Josheb]

Well, I think more along the lines of called forth.

What is the difference between "called forth" and "drawn," AND if there is a difference haven't you just proved God uses different ways?

Those who do not believe are just left in their sins.

That is incorrect. They get tossed into a furnace, a fiery lake. They reap rotting, decaying destruction, not eternal life. What that comment suggests is the Blind Watchmaker.

 

[Carbon]

What is the difference between "called forth" and "drawn," AND if there is a difference haven't you just proved God uses different ways?

Joseb, why ask something you already know?
God passes over the reprobate. Then at judgment, they are called forth. You can call it drawing or whatever you like, but you understand what I am saying.

That is incorrect. They get tossed into a furnace, a fiery lake. They reap rotting, decaying destruction, not eternal life. What that comment suggests is the Blind Watchmaker.

Sure it's correct. You're mixing up the history of the church age with the judgment. Then saying it's incorrect.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb
Matter of fact you might agree with Hokema. Being Dutch reformed, he's pretty close to Forde, but there is a difference I think you would appreciate.

I do (mostly), and I am a big fan of both Hoekema, as well as Gundry's comparative books.

"We define sanctification as that gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, involving our responsible participation, by which He delivers us as justified sinners from the pollution of sin, renews our entire nature according to the image of God, and enables us to live lives that are pleasing to Him."​

I think that is spot on.

I do, however, disagree with his view that nothing new or different is added but, instead, sanctification involves the use of already given gifts (given at the time of our creation and prior to salvation) to be used in a right way instead of sinful ways. I think both occur. I am a much different person than I was 40 years ago, and the differences are not merely ones of degrees.

 

[Carbon]

Well then, let me say it another way.

Those who do not believe are just left in their sins.

@Josheb That is incorrect. They get tossed into a furnace, a fiery lake. They reap rotting, decaying destruction, not eternal life. What that comment suggests is the Blind Watchmaker.

Those who are not elect are passed over and left in their sins. Then as @Josheb said, as he tells of their destination.