God won't violate man's will?

[makesends]

Yes.
Granted, I took the liberty of defining "free will" as I understand how Arminians would generally define it. Self determine more specifically means 100% determined by the individual. Now empirical evidence can show this to be untrue, but the question IMO assumes the definition to be true.


That is probably true, but it seems contradictory. What is the degree to which God and others influence people? I think it helps their case to not commit to any theory that can be tested and that definition is obtuse enough to make almost anything theory fit.

Haha! Yes!!

LOL ... sounds like what I said in last comment.



Re I said: ....of course, most reformed individuals believe man has free (self determined) will when it comes to an individual's choice to commit evil.

Granted, reform people have a different definition of Free Will. They, IMO, would define Free Will as: we do what we most desire to do at the time. Then, when it comes to evil it's a mystery as to the first cause of our desires if they dare to delve that deeply into the question.

It kind of grinds me when the Reformed don't only say that the unsaved do according to their inclinations, but that the unsaved are FREE to do according to their inclinations. Some will not give me a definite answer on the question of whether that is actual freedom within those bounds —particularly as relates to causation. Is their choice between two sinful options actually free to DO either one? Or do the influences and inclinations CAUSE them to do only what God determined beforehand that they will do? Is it merely that either choice is sin, or is it, rather, that either choice is caused (long chain) by God's creating.

(OT: I'm hoping some day to start a list of sayings by good logicians, that I still never get written down when I hear them, who say better than I know how to say, statements that demonstrate that there is no such thing as 'a little spontaneity', and so on. Yet, I know there is something individual and good about each member of the Body of Christ, and I have a LOT of speculation going as to what exactly it is that God finds so delightful in every member of the Bride of Christ, and substantial in every timber and decoration in the Dwelling Place of God, but I am pretty doggone sure it is not Free Will.)

 

[makesends]

Yes, I believe it does. When Christ takes and unites the sinner to himself, the Spirit regenerates the sinner. But there is a sequence in a sense. In regenerating the sinner, the sinner is still guilty, that is legally in a state of sin. The regenerate has a new nature for sure but, that has not altered his legal status for past offenses, or even thereafter. It's when the sinner looks to Christ in faith that his status changes.

I believe we agree that sinners are not justified because they were regenerated, but because Christ has paid the penalty and applied his benefits to them. In this, the gift of faith.

Yes, the new man in Christ possesses this gift (faith) as part of the new nature.

Why would you say that?

that's what I said.

I'm a full monergist also.

Above is my understanding.

I guess my problem is that it sounds like a construction that allows for a certain degree of synergism, instead of Salvation being ENTIRELY of Grace. I tend to think of Faith as not only a gift of God, that is a necessary result of the Spirit making us IN CHRIST upon his taking up residence in us, but the very activity of that faith is done in us, as opposed to being done by us.

As @Josheb has been saying, volition is nothing in Salvation. It is a result at best, and does not complete what God has begun.

Not that you disagree with me, there, but just explaining.

 

[Ladodgers6]

It's not just dead, it sinful and dead. What fruit does a sinful root bear? What plant, bush, or tree would sin beget? While I read the following verse with some degree of hyperbole, it's unequivocal bluntness is plain,

Luke 6:43-44
For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.

.

Yes, but I am going to split a hair here because the premise of "resistance" implies there is some conscious willfulness and, as I have already submitted, will - the sinner's volition - is irrelevant. When Paul describes the natural man (1 Cor. 2:14), Paul plainly states the Spirit's things cannot be understood and they are considered foolishness. The question, therefore, must be asked, "Exactly what kind of volitional agency, liberty, or 'freedom' does that natural man possess?" and, since the answer is, "None!" we must conclude the sinner is no more "choosing" denial than s/he is choosing God. At best we can conclude the choice is sinfully dead and enslaved. Is that actually a choice? No! It is a contradiction in terms! The sinner is not able to make a choice in sinfully dead and enslaved ignorance. This is the substance of Calvin's argument the sinner "chooses" according to his nature. His nature is dead. His nature is death. The sinner (falsely) imagines himself to be volitionally active, but the truth is he is nothing more than an air-breathing and blood-pumping corpse plodding through what he (falsely) imagines is a life on his way toward his own destruction.

He cannot choose his way out of that condition.

The sinner's will is irrelevant.

Romans 8:6-8
For the mind of flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.


What will, what volition performs independent of the mind? What choice is never informed by the mind? None. Such a choice would be a mindless, thoughtless choice, the antithesis of the synergist appeal to verses like Romans 10:17. A person has to have a mind in order to hear. A person has to have a mind in order to know and understand. A person must have a mind in order to make choices..... and the mind of (sinful flesh absent the Holy Spirit does not and CANNOT please God. The things of the Spirit are foolishness and not understood. Any choice made thereof would be one made in ignorance, not just a sinful choice made by an impotent sinful mind hostile to God.

This is why the synergist soteriologies must reduce the severity of sin. NONE of their eisegetic inferences can stand, or withstand critical examination, apart from a lessened sin. Arminius was intelligent, and honest, enough to acknowledge the totally soteriological depraving effects of sin. All the other synergists must say something (that "something" is never specified) remains sufficient enough and by which the otherwise dead and enslaved sinful sinner can still choose God. They are wrong.

Will is irrelevant.

It is precisely the will, affection and intellect that are affect by the Fall. Basically all of man is fallen. Fallen man's will always is resistant to God because they hate the light and love the darkness. They are hostile towards God, enemies of God, and follow the lusts of the flesh and depraved mind. Everybody walks this way, Paul says. Not until it is God who makes us Alive in Christ. We must know how far we have fallen from God. Knowing that we hate him doesn't mean they have a choice to change this disposition, correct? Because sinners are sworn enemies of God. But what causes the disposition to change? How can a sworn enemy have love for someone he hates? Even the creation around sinners highlight God's eternal power; 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Even knowing there is a God they decide to not honor him or gives thanks to him but rather exchange the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man. Doesn't this sound familiar? Didn't Adam and Eve want to be like gods; just like the serpent said they would be? Sinners do not want or desire God. They're full of pride and ego in trying to overthrow God and replace him with images resembling man! So where does fallen man will's lie? And how can this change? Is is through Grace Alone, or human activity?​

 

[Ladodgers6]

The question was, "Since both monergists and synergists might say God "woos" the person, what is the difference between Calvinist wooing and Arminian wooing?"

Arminians say: wooing. This Prevenient Grace is not effectual in saving anyone.

Calvinists say: Regeneration of the Elect. This is Effectual Grace bringing about the Salvation of the Elect.

Who the question must be asked, how is a sinner saved? It is by Grace Alone (God's Doing) or is it subjective (Human doing)?

The Law that condemns us all; says do; which we cannot do; this is the curse. But the Gospel says done; for Christ has fulfill the Law demands and became a curse for us. So, that through the gift of faith and being made alive in the Christ through the Holy Spirit we are saved. But all of this is God's doing, not our own. People often confuse our fruits as the cause of it instead of the signs or results of it. All glory belongs to God Alone! To suggest that sinners hands contribute anything but their sin is conflating Law into Gospel. Which robs sinners of the free gifts with no strings attached, just absolutely free. The freer the better​

 

[CrowCross]

And He was saying, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” John 6:65.

Would you show me where or how you get that from this verse? I don't see it.

It just may be something I haven't seen before. But I am curious.

Thanks

If you haven't been granted by the Father to come to Jesus you won't be able to come. Now I add, as that is the nature of man who doesn't have the ability to come to Jesus on their own effort.

 

[Josheb]

I would offer

Without parables the signified or spiritual unseen understanding. Christ spoke not through his prophet Jesus Revealing the mystery of faith to the redeemed. In that way parable are designed to teach us how to walk by His faithfulness. Faith the unseen eternal understanding.

In that way I would offer study to learn how to rightly divide the parables (prophecy) The apostles' struggled against the mysteries of our faith full God . On one occasion after a series of parables he rebuked them and said to them they knew not what manner of spirit they were of. The spirit of natural unconverted mankind

Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.

Christ by faith teaches us his understanding

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

 

[Josheb]

Would you agree that all sinners are in bondage to sin?​

Yes, and that has already been stated multiple times in this thread (and scores of others).

This means without God's Irresistible Grace or (Effectual Grace) nobody would be saved.​

Yes, and that too has also already been stated in this thread.

Preaching of the Gospel is a calling to God's people (The Elect) and they come forth out of the darkness; they believe, trust and follow Jesus.​

Which, if I understand the opening post correctly, is an implied given defining the thread (therefore not something to be debated).

God's word is alive that breaths life into God's people, regenerating them with the Holy Spirit; renewing the minds and hearts of God's elect.​

Irrelevant to the subject of this op. This op is about the Arminian explanation for prayer for the unsaved, not the already saved. God's word is not alive in the dead regenerating them with the Holy Spirit and renewing their mind. Besides, it is not the word that regenerates with the Holy Spirit. That sentence isn't just irrelevant; it's backwards.

There's no place between life and death where the sinner is placed in limbo to make a decision.​

Yep. I have already stated that here and many times in many other threads. Arminius' moment of prevenient liberation is nothing more than an intellectual hypothesis, one that has no explicit support in scripture and one that can be arrived at only through an eisegetic inferential reading of scripture. Arminianism is entirely inferential.

The sinner's will is irrelevant.

That decision was already made by our representative head in the garden. In Adam everyone is doomed to death and punishment due in full by the imputation of Adam's sin. We now need a Remedy, a cure, a Savior, we need Grace & Mercy. But Grace & Mercy cannot be earned it can only be given. No human activity can achieve favor with God.

Faith is also a gift along with the free gift of righteousness through the One Man; Christ Jesus. It's his activity that saves, not anything we do or will do. The fallacy is that people think Christ is not enough and we need to make a choice and help Christ where he couldn't. That's how amazing the Gospel truth is, that the Gospel says done; whereas the Law says do! This is why Paul called God's Grace & Mercy, rich, and as deep as the ocean.​

I'm not sure what the purpose of Post #60 is.

If it is a statement of agreement with what has already been posted then that should be stated somewhere. If there is some point of disagreement then that should be stated somewhere. Since everything except the mistaken comment the word regenerates a person with the Spirit has already been posted I cannot see that Post 60 furthers the discussion and unless that comment about the word regenerating with the Spirit is somehow related to the specific inquiries asked in the opening post then it's also off topic.

What's the intended point?

 

[Josheb]

Arminians say: wooing. This Prevenient Grace is not effectual in saving anyone.

Calvinists say: Regeneration of the Elect. This is Effectual Grace bringing about the Salvation of the Elect.

Who the question must be asked, how is a sinner saved? It is by Grace Alone (God's Doing) or is it subjective (Human doing)?

The Law that condemns us all; says do; which we cannot do; this is the curse. But the Gospel says done; for Christ has fulfill the Law demands and became a curse for us. So, that through the gift of faith and being made alive in the Christ through the Holy Spirit we are saved. But all of this is God's doing, not our own. People often confuse our fruits as the cause of it instead of the signs or results of it. All glory belongs to God Alone! To suggest that sinners hands contribute anything but their sin is conflating Law into Gospel. Which robs sinners of the free gifts with no strings attached, just absolutely free. The freer the better​

No.

That has little to do with the questions asked in this op and most of what's stated has already been covered in a more op-relevant way. If God cannot violate the sinner's will then why pray [implicitly requiring God to do so]?

If God cannot violate man’s will, why do Arminian's pray for God to save them? Are Arminians confused?

Shouldn't you rather beg the person to believe?

The given is "God cannot violate Man's will." That is the stipulation of the op. Calvinists do not hold that position. The op, therefore, is explicitly couched in the synergist point of view and given that synergist point of view assert God cannot violate a humans will, the op asks Arminians what is the explanation for prayer that God would save someone. Would such a prayer not, in one way or another, violate the rule against violating a person's will? Cals do not have that problem. We may have another problem or three, but we do not have that problem. We do not have the problem of contradicting our own soteriology when it comes to prayer for the unsaved having God violate the unsaved's will. Wouldn't begging the dead slave be more consistent and therefore more veracious? The problem is akin to the synergist asking the monergist why pray if everything has all already been decided but that is not the subject of this op.

Now go back and re-read the exchange between @Carbon and I with that consciously in mind because I am NOT trying to explain Calvinism or Arminianism to anyone. Everything I posted is relates back to the questions asked in this op (or at least I have endeavored to be mindful of those inquiries for the entire four pages). Sadly, I do not read any Arminians responding to this op.

 

[Josheb]

It is precisely the will, affection and intellect that are affect by the Fall. Basically all of man is fallen. Fallen man's will always is resistant to God because they hate the light and love the darkness. They are hostile towards God, enemies of God, and follow the lusts of the flesh and depraved mind. Everybody walks this way,​

Yep.

Arminius agrees. Other salvation doctrine authors disagree but this op specifies the Arminian. The stipulation is important because the op's questions are asked in that context: the context of total depravity with which truly Reformed Arminians must adhere if they are to have consistency with their own doctrine. The non-Arminian synergist will have different answers, but non-Arminian synergists were not specified in this op. Once the two givens are cited: 1) Every single sinner is unable to do anything in his/her own might that would bring him to God for salvation and 2) God cannot violate his/her will, then that poses either a real or a perceived contradiction. Why pray to God asking for a change from the depraved state to the saved state? Does not such prayer implicitly violate the tenet God can't violate human will?

It's a great inquiry.


However, my response, as an ardent monergist, is to say the sinner's will is irrelevant and as genius as the op is, it's also a red herring. Maybe, just maybe, by seeing the contradiction inherent within Arminianism..... the Arminian can see that all the talk about the sinner's volitional faculties is all a red herring.


The sinner's will is irrelevant.


Spinning off from what Jonathan Edwards said, it is the sinner's (thoroughly corrupted) will from which the sinner is being saved.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Irrelevant to the subject of this op. This op is about the Arminian explanation for prayer for the unsaved, not the already saved. God's word is not alive in the dead regenerating them with the Holy Spirit and renewing their mind. Besides, it is not the word that regenerates with the Holy Spirit. That sentence isn't just irrelevant; it's backwards.

I guess you're not understanding what I am sharing. I am talking about the sinners dead sin. And I do understand the OP, because I use to be a Classical Arminian. To which I am trying to explain. Arminianism teaches Total Depravity, but then with a sleight of hand say that Man's will cannot be violated, correct? The sinner is either dead or alive there's no 3rd category here. And this is not irrelevant to the topic but pivotal to ascertain if a dead sinner is saved by Grace or by works. God's word breaths into the dead sinner life; by making them alive in Christ through the preaching of his word through the Holy Spirit; regeneration. I beg to differ God's word is alive and the Holy Spirit bears witness to it. Just like when God commanded by his word, "Let there be Light," so too it is with his people who hear his words.​

Yep. I have already stated that here and many times in many other threads. Arminius' moment of prevenient liberation is nothing more than an intellectual hypothesis, one that has no explicit support in scripture and one that can be arrived at only through an eisegetic inferential reading of scripture. Arminianism is entirely inferential.

I see you are annoyed that you have to repeat yourself. I have been away for a while due to medical issues. So, forgive me and bear with me. Note that I am only sharing with you. I hope you understand this.

The sinner's will is irrelevant.

Can you expand on this point for those reading these posts. Because this important for people to know, if you wouldn't mind.

I'm not sure what the purpose of Post #60 is.

If it is a statement of agreement with what has already been posted then that should be stated somewhere. If there is some point of disagreement then that should be stated somewhere. Since everything except the mistaken comment the word regenerates a person with the Spirit has already been posted I cannot see that Post 60 furthers the discussion and unless that comment about the word regenerating with the Spirit is somehow related to the specific inquiries asked in the opening post then it's also off topic.

What's the intended point?

To emphasize that our being saved is all of Grace; Monergistic. I was just outlining what the Arminian position stand is and opposing it with the Reformed position. I was adding to the conversation. My initial thought was instead of praying why not share the Free Gospel that saves the ungodly with the unsaved person? Anyway no ill intent on my part, enjoy your day.​

 

[Carbon]

Yes, but I am going to split a hair here because the premise of "resistance" implies there is some conscious willfulness and, as I have already submitted, will - the sinner's volition - is irrelevant. When Paul describes the natural man (1 Cor. 2:14), Paul plainly states the Spirit's things cannot be understood and they are considered foolishness.

Amen!

The question, therefore, must be asked, "Exactly what kind of volitional agency, liberty, or 'freedom' does that natural man possess?"

@Josheb , that is a great question.

and, since the answer is, "None!" we must conclude the sinner is no more "choosing" denial than s/he is choosing God. and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

That makes total sense. I agree.
And for some who might say, I don’t believe and I want nothing to do with your God, really have no idea what they are talking about, at least of what is outsude their nature.

A question. When do you think the drawing stops?
You may say the question is quite vague. If so, I can understand that.

 

[Josheb]

Can you expand on this point for those reading these posts. Because this important for people to know, if you wouldn't mind.​

(Re-)Read the last four pages of posts because those posts expand upon the statement at length.

I was adding to the conversation.

Would you please list the specific op-relevant addition and explain it in a concise manner?

My initial thought was instead of praying why not share the Free Gospel that saves the ungodly with the unsaved person? Anyway no ill intent on my part, enjoy your day.

I'm glad no ill intent, but sharing the gospel is outside the specifics of the op. Anyone can do that, Cal, Arm, Provisionist, Pelagian or Outer Glaxovian. Both the ability and the action of sharing does not answer the question, "Hey, Arminian, why do you pray to God to save a person if God cannot violate their will?" and the question, "Why do you not beg the other person?" is already necessarily contingent upon their having had the gospel preached to them.

If God cannot violate man’s will, why do Arminian's pray for God to save them? Are Arminians confused? Shouldn't you rather beg the person to believe?

God not violating the unregenerate, totally depraved sinner's will is a stated given. The unregenerate, totally depraved sinner's having heard the gospel is an implicit given. How could they be begged to believe something they had not heard?

I was adding to the conversation.

I'm not seeing it.

I guess you're not understanding what I am sharing.

I acknowledged that fact previously.

I am talking about the sinners dead sin.

We all are. Regenerate sinners dead in sin do not need anyone to pray to God for them to be saved and they do not need to be begged to believe, nor do they need to hear the gospel.

Please list the specific op-relevant addition to this thread. Thx

 

[Ladodgers6]

(Re-)Read the last four pages of posts because those posts expand upon the statement at length.

Would you please list the specific op-relevant addition and explain it in a concise manner?

I'm glad no ill intent, but sharing the gospel is outside the specifics of the op. Anyone can do that, Cal, Arm, Provisionist, Pelagian or Outer Glaxovian. Both the ability and the action of sharing does not answer the question, "Hey, Arminian, why do you pray to God to save a person if God cannot violate their will?" and the question, "Why do you not beg the other person?" is already necessarily contingent upon their having had the gospel preached to them.

God not violating the unregenerate, totally depraved sinner's will is a stated given. The unregenerate, totally depraved sinner's having heard the gospel is an implicit given. How could they be begged to believe something they had not heard?

I'm not seeing it.

I acknowledged that fact previously.

We all are. Regenerate sinners dead in sin do not need anyone to pray to God for them to be saved and they do not need to be begged to believe, nor do they need to hear the gospel.

Please list the specific op-relevant addition to this thread. Thx

Nevermind Josheb, it looks obviously enough that we will not be able to converse. You have a great day.

 

[Carbon]

If God cannot violate man’s will, why do Arminian's pray for God to save them? Are Arminians confused? Shouldn't you rather beg the person to believe?

God not violating the unregenerate, totally depraved sinner's will is a stated given. The unregenerate, totally depraved sinner's having heard the gospel is an implicit given. How could they be begged to believe something they had not heard?

If it is as Arminians say, God will not violate a man's will. If that be so, why would they pray to God to change their minds? It's saying Yes God, I know you don't violate man's will, and I know this particular person wants nothing to do with you, but, I'm still going to ask you to do something anyway. Violate his will, make him a believer.

If this is the case God can't/wont violate this man's will. Wouldn't there be more success in begging this person to believe?

Keeping in mind Arminians believe in decisional regeneration.

 

[Josheb]

Amen!

@Josheb , that is a great question.

That makes total sense. I agree.
And for some who might say, I don’t believe and I want nothing to do with your God, really have no idea what they are talking about, at least of what is outsude their nature.

Then what are the two places of disagreement alluded to previously?

A question. When do you think the drawing stops?

Well, let's start with the often cited "no one can come... unless the Father draws him..." I typically point out the particular verb is one used to describe a fisherman drawing, or hauling, his net full of fish or his water-soaked heavy net out of the water. Many other Cals use the word "dragged," instead. The salient point is that verse is not a passive, subtle, or benign "drawing," but something the language indicates is strenuously active.

Are there times when God is subtle, passive, OR less strenuous? Yes, I think so. I might even argue the unfolding of creation occurs in that manner. God does not need to add anything to the divinely-ordered unfolding of everything created in the first six days. He finished that work. Well done. That, however, does not preclude from entering His creation and adding intervention, great or small, direct or indirect, and I would argue there are many occasions of this in scripture. ALL of that (both the eternal ordaining, the first six days, AND the subsequent involvement) ALL of it works in various ways to various degrees to accomplish TWO "drawings." One to salvation and the other to destruction. Salvation is not a coin without another side. Salvation is not an antithesis-less thesis. It's a huge mistake to thin salvation exists in a vacuum (just covering the base, not saying anyone has said such a thing here).

Does drawing cease once a person is saved? No! Two of the most obvious examples would be 1) the maturity of the individual believer and the corporate body of Christ, and 2) the eventual event when every knee bows. Every Christian is drawn to the first and every human, Christian or non- is drawn to the second and no one can escape the latter. Overall all the ultimate "drawing" is that of God's glory and, again, God is glorified whether a sinner is destroyed or whether a sinner is saved from destruction. There's no third option of independence or autonomy or God not being glorified.

A question. When do you think the drawing stops?

The short answer is...

NEVER​

.

 

[Carbon]

Does drawing cease once a person is saved? No! Two of the most obvious examples would be 1) the maturity of the individual believer and the corporate body of Christ, and 2) the eventual event when every knee bows. Every Christian is drawn to the first and every human, Christian or non- is drawn to the second and no one can escape the latter. Overall all the ultimate "drawing" is that of God's glory and, again, God is glorified whether a sinner is destroyed or whether a sinner is saved from destruction. There's no third option of independence or autonomy or God not being glorified.

The short answer is...

NEVER​

I really am glad we agree here.

 

[Carbon]

Then what are the two places of disagreement alluded to previously?

I already told you. We disagree on total depravity. As you believe the Calvinist and Arminians define it the same.
And the touchy subject, Sanctification.

 

[Carbon]

Does drawing cease once a person is saved? No!

Amen!

Two of the most obvious examples would be 1) the maturity of the individual believer and the corporate body of Christ,

And sanctification.

and 2) the eventual event when every knee bows. Every Christian is drawn to the first and every human,

Yes, John 6:44b.................... and I will raise him up at the last day.

Christian or non- is drawn to the second and no one can escape the latter.

Well, I think more along the lines of called forth. As far as the reprobate in concerned.

Overall all the ultimate "drawing" is that of God's glory and, again, God is glorified whether a sinner is destroyed or whether a sinner is saved from destruction. There's no third option of independence or autonomy or God not being glorified.

Those who do not believe are just left in their sins. Believers are being drawn to glorification.
I know for a fact that if God wasn't constantly drawing me, and I was left to myself, I would have been long gone. I normally live Romans 7, if it were not for God...Bye Bye.

God's drawing is effective, all those who He draws come. Drawing being universal is nonsense, in John 6, Judas destroys that idea.

 

[Josheb]

I already told you. We disagree on total depravity. As you believe the Calvinist and Arminians define it the same.

This is (conceivably) readily addressed and easily resolved.

1. Post the Calvin's definition of total depravity.
2. Post Arminius' definition of total depravity.
3. Cite the difference(s).

Calvin said, "So depraved is [human] nature that he can be moved or impelled only to evil."

Arminius said, "To the darkness of the mind succeeds the perverseness of the affections and of the heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil."

I see no difference. Both men plainly stated evil is the movement or pursuit of the sinner.

Calvin said, "Let men now go and be proud of free-will, whose guidance is here marked by so deep disgrace. But experience, we shall be told, is openly at variance with this opinion; for men are not so blind as to be incapable of seeing anything, nor so vain as to be incapable of forming any judgment. I answer, with respect to the kingdom of God, and all that relates to the spiritual life, the light of human reason differs little from darkness; for, before it has pointed out the road, it is extinguished; and its power of perception is little else than blindness, for ere it has reached the fruit, it is gone. The true principles held by the human mind resemble sparks; [148] but these are choked by the depravity of our nature, before they have been applied to their proper use. All men know, for instance, that there is a God, and that it is our duty to worship him; but such is the power of sin and ignorance, that from this confused knowledge we pass all at once to an idol, and worship it in the place of God. And even in the worship of God, it leads to great errors, particularly in the first table of the law."

Arminius said, "In this [sinful] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.... That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."

Is there a difference?

Let's be clear here. What I said was Arminius defined the concept identically. I also said many Arminians do so differently and of them most do so in a manner that's not consistent with the Reformed Arminius. Take care, therefore, not to move the goalposts, especially not for the purposes of asserting a difference where none exists.

If you have a specific example of Arminius defining total depravity different than Calvin I'd like to read it.

And the touchy subject, Sanctification.

I see.

Three thoughts on that. The first is that sanctification is not relevant to this op and when I read the statement we have two points of disagreement I thought that was intended to mean two pints specifically within this thread. The second is, based on our prior conversations, it seems you have not yet fully decided on the matter of sanctification and are notably influenced by Lutheranism, not Calvinism, by your open acknowledgment. That, therefore, is not really a disagreement with my view of Calvin and Arminius, but a disagreement within yourself. The third thought is that you wrote an op specifically on sanctification following one of our lengthy exchanges in another thread and in that op concluded the exact same position I previously asserted.

Both are saying the same thing: God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves. With the right qualifications and definitions, I believe Calvin, Turretin, A Brakel, Hodge, Bavinck, and Berkhof would heartily agree.

If you truly believe, "God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves," then sanctification is not a point of disagreement between us, and it should be removed from the list.



If you a specific example of Calvin and Arminius defining the depravity of humanity differently, I'd like to read it. Otherwise, proof of their identical view has been provided and any disagreement is not with me and my views, but with the fact(s) of history - or with what Arminians have (abusively) done to Arminius views.

 

[Carbon]

This is (conceivably) readily addressed and easily resolved.

1. Post the Calvin's definition of total depravity.
2. Post Arminius' definition of total depravity.
3. Cite the difference(s).

Calvin said, "So depraved is [human] nature that he can be moved or impelled only to evil."

Arminius said, "To the darkness of the mind succeeds the perverseness of the affections and of the heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil."

I see no difference. Both men plainly stated evil is the movement or pursuit of the sinner.

Calvin said, "Let men now go and be proud of free-will, whose guidance is here marked by so deep disgrace. But experience, we shall be told, is openly at variance with this opinion; for men are not so blind as to be incapable of seeing anything, nor so vain as to be incapable of forming any judgment. I answer, with respect to the kingdom of God, and all that relates to the spiritual life, the light of human reason differs little from darkness; for, before it has pointed out the road, it is extinguished; and its power of perception is little else than blindness, for ere it has reached the fruit, it is gone. The true principles held by the human mind resemble sparks; [148] but these are choked by the depravity of our nature, before they have been applied to their proper use. All men know, for instance, that there is a God, and that it is our duty to worship him; but such is the power of sin and ignorance, that from this confused knowledge we pass all at once to an idol, and worship it in the place of God. And even in the worship of God, it leads to great errors, particularly in the first table of the law."

Arminius said, "In this [sinful] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.... That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."

Is there a difference?

Let's be clear here. What I said was Arminius defined the concept identically. I also said many Arminians do so differently and of them most do so in a manner that's not consistent with the Reformed Arminius. Take care, therefore, not to move the goalposts, especially not for the purposes of asserting a difference where none exists.

If you have a specific example of Arminius defining total depravity different than Calvin I'd like to read it.

I see.

Three thoughts on that. The first is that sanctification is not relevant to this op and when I read the statement we have two points of disagreement I thought that was intended to mean two pints specifically within this thread. The second is, based on our prior conversations, it seems you have not yet fully decided on the matter of sanctification and are notably influenced by Lutheranism, not Calvinism, by your open acknowledgment. That, therefore, is not really a disagreement with my view of Calvin and Arminius, but a disagreement within yourself. The third thought is that you wrote an op specifically on sanctification following one of our lengthy exchanges in another thread and in that op concluded the exact same position I previously asserted.

If you truly believe, "God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves," then sanctification is not a point of disagreement between us, and it should be removed from the list.



If you a specific example of Calvin and Arminius defining the depravity of humanity differently, I'd like to read it. Otherwise, proof of their identical view has been provided and any disagreement is not with me and my views, but with the fact(s) of history - or with what Arminians have (abusively) done to Arminius views.

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.