My issues with Arminianism

[Carbon]

@JesusFan , To the unbeliever it is natural to resist God, we are at enmity with Him after all. It’s truly irresistible to the regenerated because we can now see the kingdom as Jesus said in John 3:3.

 

[JesusFan]

To the unbeliever it is natural to resist God, we are at enmity with Him after all. It’s truly irresistible to the regenerated because we can now see the kingdom as Jesus said in John 3:3.

yes, and those who deny irresistible grace conflate and confuse that distinction

 

[makesends]

Think that the logical endpoint of consistent Armianism theology would end up at Open Theism view of God and His operations , just as extreme view on Calvinism lands us into hyper Cal version

I disagree. Open Theism is more logically consistent than Arminianism. I don't mean more sensible, but they don't claim one thing, then turn from it to claim another.

Arminianism's claims first sound like Calvinism: God is first cause, sovereign, no principle is above him, he is not under obligation to anything but his word, fallen man is totally unable to do good, etc etc. But then they speak of libertarian free will and 'spark of divinity' and so on.

Open Theism's theme of, "It can't be known for sure, even by God, because it hasn't happened yet.", subjugates God below time and the vagaries of fate. And there he stays forever consistently subjugated to the unknown.

Open Theism does deny his omnipotence; they redefine what it means, and that meaning is consistent throughout. Arminianism does not deny it at first, but the logical implications of the things they say subsequently does deny it. Arminianism doesn't deny it, but they subjugate God to man's will.

 

[Arial]

Those who state grace can be resisted do not quite grasp that we hold that the elect cannot always resist it, as that is effectual grace unto salvation, but those still lost in their sins indeed can and do keep resisting it

When God sends forth his saving grace---it saves. It is not a matter of resisting or not resisting. It does what he sends it to do.

 

[makesends]

@JesusFan , To the unbeliever it is natural to resist God, we are at enmity with Him after all. It’s truly irresistible to the regenerated because we can now see the kingdom as Jesus said in John 3:3.

Well, yes, but more, it's irresistible in that it is done to us, apart from our decision. It's not just that we are changed; it's that we are changed apart from our consent or even our consultation. We do indeed resist it up until God makes us alive, and we even try to resist it subsequent to that rebirth. But that rebirth is what is irresistible. At least, that's is what I understand TULIP to be referring to.

 

[Carbon]

Well, yes, but more, it's irresistible in that it is done to us, apart from our decision.

Yes of course, it’s God’s decision, not ours.

It's not just that we are changed; it's that we are changed apart from our consent or even our consultation.

Well yes, but Christ’s has become our desire.

We do indeed resist it up until God makes us alive, and we even try to resist it subsequent to that rebirth.

But that rebirth is what is irresistible. At least, that's is what I understand TULIP to be referring to.

It’s because of that rebirth (regeneration) Christ is irresistible.

Rebirth happens below our conscience so it can’t be resistible.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

@JesusFan , To the unbeliever it is natural to resist God, we are at enmity with Him after all. It’s truly irresistible to the regenerated because we can now see the kingdom as Jesus said in John 3:3.

off topic here.

I always found the word enmity interesting in this context (Romans 8:7) as well as Genesis 3:15.

The word denotes hatred, Easton's says, a deep rooted hatred.

Enmity—deep-rooted hatred. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15). The friendship of the world is “enmity with God” (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15, 16). The “carnal mind” is “enmity against God” (Rom. 8:7). By the abrogation of the Mosaic institutes the “enmity” between Jew and Gentile is removed. They are reconciled, are “made one” (Eph. 2:15, 16).

Cyclopedia says..

Enmity: “opposition; very bitter, deep-rooted, irreconcilable hatred and variance. Such a constant enmity there is between the followers of Christ and Satan; nay, there is some such enmity between mankind and some serpents (Gen. 3:15). Friendship with this world, in its wicked members and lusts, is enmity with God—is opposed to the love of him, and amounts to an actual exerting of ourselves to dishonor and abuse him (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15, 16). The carnal mind, or minding of fleshly and sinful things, is enmity against God—is opposed to his nature and will in the highest degree, and, though it may be removed, cannot be reconciled to him, nor he to it (Rom. 8:7, 8). The ceremonial law is called enmity: it marked God’s enmity against sin by demanding atonement for it; it occasioned men’s enmity against God by its burdensome services, and was an accidental source of standing variance between Jews and Gentiles: or perhaps the enmity here meant is the state of variance between God and men, whereby he justly loathed and hated them as sinful, and condemned them to punishment; and they wickedly hated him for his holy excellence, retributive justice, and sovereign goodness: both are slain and abolished by the death of Christ (Eph. 2:15, 16).”—Brown, Dictionary of the Bible, s. v.

s. v. sub verbo = under the word.

In Macarthur's sermon on Romans 8:7 he uses the word hatred in place of hostility and hatred.

I bring this up, because I have witnessed this hatred for the Lord in person and never thought it was just hostility.

It was very evil and demonic.

The unregenerate are of their father the devil, they want nothing do do with His light.

The hate is very strong, look how they killed our Lord with their enmity.



John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Enmity,” in Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891), 223–224.

 

[Carbon]

off topic here.

I always found the word enmity interesting in this context (Romans 8:7) as well as Genesis 3:15.

The word denotes hatred, Easton's says, a deep rooted hatred.

Yes, it's a pretty serious word. Some people think it's just like an enemy. But it's not. Two enemies can find a way to work things out and come to an agreement, and eventually even get along and become friends. Not so with someone at enmity with another; they won't get along to reconcile things, and there will never be trust.

Cyclopedia says..

In Macarthur's sermon on Romans 8:7 he uses the word hatred in place of hostility and hatred.

I bring this up, because I have witnessed this hatred for the Lord in person and never thought it was just hostility.

It was very evil and demonic.

The unregenerate are of their father the devil, they want nothing do do with His light.

The hate is very strong, look how they killed our Lord with their enmity.

Amen

John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Enmity,” in Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891), 223–224.

 

[makesends]

The hate is very strong, look how they killed our Lord with their enmity.

And THAT, "by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge;"!! Compatibilism at its most severe.

 

[JesusFan]

I disagree. Open Theism is more logically consistent than Arminianism. I don't mean more sensible, but they don't claim one thing, then turn from it to claim another.

Arminianism's claims first sound like Calvinism: God is first cause, sovereign, no principle is above him, he is not under obligation to anything but his word, fallen man is totally unable to do good, etc etc. But then they speak of libertarian free will and 'spark of divinity' and so on.

Open Theism's theme of, "It can't be known for sure, even by God, because it hasn't happened yet.", subjugates God below time and the vagaries of fate. And there he stays forever consistently subjugated to the unknown.

Open Theism does deny his omnipotence; they redefine what it means, and that meaning is consistent throughout. Arminianism does not deny it at first, but the logical implications of the things they say subsequently does deny it. Arminianism doesn't deny it, but they subjugate God to man's will.

Open theism theology is what happens when a Finney free will gospel is pushed to its logical conclusion

 

[JesusFan]

Well, yes, but more, it's irresistible in that it is done to us, apart from our decision. It's not just that we are changed; it's that we are changed apart from our consent or even our consultation. We do indeed resist it up until God makes us alive, and we even try to resist it subsequent to that rebirth. But that rebirth is what is irresistible. At least, that's is what I understand TULIP to be referring to.

the Holy Spirit enables we who are the elect in Christ to have regenerated hearts and minds along with saving faith to hear and respond to that gospel message

 

[makesends]

the Holy Spirit enables we who are the elect in Christ to have regenerated hearts and minds along with saving faith to hear and respond to that gospel message

Yes, quite! But is that response what saves? Or is it subsequent to becoming born again?

 

[makesends]

Open theism theology is what happens when a Finney free will gospel is pushed to its logical conclusion

I say, either that, or one is forced to see the logical self-contradiction of libertarian free-will. Frankly, to me, they are both logically self-contradictory, but at least, Open Theism is more consistent than Arminianism.