Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism

Response to: Calvinism- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva ^ | August 13, 2003 | OP

[CCWoody]

I'm still getting caught up, but, just for your own info, ftd is himself a Molinist "Middle Knowledge" heretic.

hozabout that for ironic!

Woody.

[CCWoody]

Cool. Thanks for the links.

[CCWoody]

I don't hate Calvin or Calvinism. ~ ctd

How many posts before ctd started wallowing in his hatred for Calvinism Woody wonders to himself.....

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

However, again, the issue was whether or not Wesley was inconsequential because he remained an Anglican. I have spoken to many Christians in my day, probably as a result of being a chaplain in the US Army for 20 years, and these have been from many more denominations than I knew existed prior to entering service. Most of them ARE familiar with free will doctrines. They question why evil exists in the world. It's a naturally arising question that each Christian must deal with. I'd agree that most of them cannot talk to you about the term 'prevenient grace,' but they can speak to you about the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on a person prior to that person becoming Christian. They are doctrinally uneducated but spiritually aware of the great questions of the faith. I think calvinists would find many of them very inquisitive about calvinist predestinarianism IF calvinists approached it with the grace of a DrE or a DrJ and not with a baseball bat.

"They can speak to you about the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on a person prior to that person becoming Christian"... Per'zackly. That's exactly the point.

I may be the "Bat-Man" of the Calvinists, but I also know when to take it down a notch, or three. And get personal -- because I've been there. Ask RnMomof7 -- she knows exactly what I am talking about.

Wesleyan "prevenient grace" proposes that the Spirit will "woo" Man to Christ. It proposes that the Spirit will "persuade" Man to Christ. It proposes that God will "influence" Man to Christ. It proposes that the Spirit will "entreat" Man to Christ.

It proposes everything but what actually happens in Regeneration -- that the Spirit SHOCKINGLY RE-ENGINEERS the entire Heart of Man to Christ, IN ORDER TO Believe. Because if the Wesleyan admits that, he has no theology left. He becomes a Calvinist.

• For all the "prevenient grace" in the universe, the Wesleyan still proposes that an unregenerate Man must see the Kingdom of God (which is to see the Lordship of God's annointed King Jesus) in order to be Born Again.
• The Calvinist, together with the Bible, preaches that Man must be Born Again in order to see the Kingdom of God (which is to see the Lordship of God's annointed King Jesus).

Once I lay down my baseball bats... The Gospel of John 3:3 is still the Gospel.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I'm still getting caught up, but, just for your own info, ftd is himself a Molinist "Middle Knowledge" heretic. hozabout that for ironic!

No, that's FTD's "flava of the week".

As soon as he figures out that the Scientia Media surrenders the entire front line to Calvinism (see FTD's failure to answer #134; even if he does, I've already got the debate wrapped up inside of three arguments), he'll move onto a new "flava of the week".

His concern is certainly not primarily with Christianity (p'shaw!), it's entirely focused upon Anti-Calvinism. Whatever gets him through the night, y'know?

[drstevej]

***I'm still getting caught up, but, just for your own info, ftd is himself a Molinist "Middle Knowledge" heretic. hozabout that for ironic!***

*** he'll move onto a new "flava of the week"***

Maybe he'll become a Hobbitist, "Middle-Earth Knowledge"

[xzins]

What is a "middle knowledge" heretic?

[drstevej]

MOLINISM

Molinism, named after Luis de Molina, is a theological system for reconciling human freedom with God's grace and providence. Presupposing a strongly libertarian account of freedom, Molinists assert against their rivals that the grace whereby God cooperates with supernaturally salvific acts is not intrinsically efficacious. To preserve divine providence and foreknowledge, they then posit "middle knowledge", through which God knows, prior to his own free decrees, how any possible rational agent would freely act in any possible situation. Beyond this, they differ among themselves regarding the ground for middle knowledge and the doctrines of efficacious grace and predestination.

Molinism is an influential system within Catholic theology for reconciling human free choice with God's grace, providence, foreknowledge and predestination. Originating within the Society of Jesus in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, it encountered stiff opposition from Bañezian Thomists and from the self-styled Augustinian disciples of Michael Baius and Cornelius Jansen.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Maybe he'll become a Hobbitist, "Middle-Earth Knowledge"

Doubt that very much. Please see the GOOGLE record of one of the last-cached Free Republic articles in which another Poster referred to me by my old screen name (Uriel1975):

Hobbits are Calvinists

Well, if it's GOOGLE, it can't be wrong. ;-)

[Gamecock]

Wesley returned to the original teachings of the Church on predestination, the one held for the first three centuries before Augustine invented what would become the lie of Geneva

With the exception of the pre-Augustine teachers listed below, you have a point!

Christ, Matthew 22:14, Matthew 24: 22-31
Luke 18:17
the letters of Paul: Romans 8:28-3 and 33; Romans 11:28 Colossians 3:12 1 Thessalonians 5:9 Titus 1:1
The writings of Peter 1 Peter 1:1-1, 2:8-9
and John in Revelation 17:14

The writings of Barnabas, (Paul's associate) Ignatius, Clement of Rome (69 A.D.), Justin Martyr (150 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (190 A.D.), Polycarp (198 A.D.), Cyprian (250 A.D.)Eusebius (330 A.D.)

Wesley returned to the original teachings of the Church on predestination.... On second thought, you are wrong on that statement as well.

(More available on request)

[xzins]

Wesleyan "prevenient grace" proposes that the Spirit will "woo" Man to Christ. It proposes that the Spirit will "persuade" Man to Christ. It proposes that God will "influence" Man to Christ. It proposes that the Spirit will "entreat" Man to Christ.

That's it in a nutshell. Two things: (1) Wesley would say that PG "enables" man to Christ as He "entreats" man to Christ. (2) Wesley would also add common grace as a point B. under prevenient grace.

And there you have it.

I've repeated it over and again that you cannot convince an Arminian that that "impedes" God's sovereignty BECAUSE the Arminian believes that "God set that plan up; it's God's idea."

Since God originated the idea, then it is no diminution of God's sovereignty to respond to a plan God himself initiated.

1. I think the best ways to deal with inquisitive Arminians is to say something like: "Let me just explain how it works biblically from our perspective. You don't have to say anything and I'm not going to try to convince you. But it would be helpful if you encounter a calvinist to know where we're coming from. Then I'd lay the "regeneration, justification, belief" training on them.

2. The other way is DrE's way. She simply talks about how wonderful it is to be able to know that everything is under control. But she has a poetic gift that some of you others don't have.

As for me, you know how I'm inquiring into an arminian view of predestination, that you have agreed does exist.

I'm also interested in the idea of specified intervention. (I think it makes DrE's hair stand on end.)

These are brought about by DrSteveJ's verse, 2 Pe 2:1, which seems to indicate to me that something is missing in BOTH the calvinist and the Arminian positions.

[xzins]

Does it mean that God knows all contingencies of any individual's decisions?

What's it mean to you in garage mechanic language?

[drstevej]

I'm no Molinist expert, so I'll leave that explanation to others.

So Arminians are "PG" for prevenient grace
and
Calvinists are "R" for regeneration?

[P-Marlowe]

If God can make a new creation in Christ before a person believes or repents, then why was the cross necessary? Seems to me that if God can indwell and hence have divine fellowship with an unrepentant sinner, then there is no separation of man and God because of Sin. It is the new birth that brings a person into the Kingdom of God and if the new birth preceeds repentance and the acceptance of the Gospel, then the Gospel itself is clearly not necessary for salvation. It is redundant.

How do you respond to that?

[xzins]

And Shakers get an "X"

(for not being here anymore...)

[drstevej]

If God can make a new creation in Christ before a person believes or repents, then why was the cross necessary?

It it simultaneous (logical order, remember).

[xzins]

I found that same idea in Arminius' writings once.

From the Arminian perspective, it makes perfect sense that the cross is rendered unnecessary.

From the Calvinist perspective, I think they said it was necessary for Christ to die because it was part of the God's sovereign plan.

Basically, if you think about it, that goes back to square one in the discussion. God's plan versus God's knowledge.

[CARepubGal]

Your opposition to Calvinism boils down to this one, foundational cornerstone -- Calvinists are preaching the Gospel that Jesus Preached (John 3:3). Because you oppose that Gospel, you oppose Calvinism -- not for any other major reason at all. Now where is that Calvinist who claimed that some Calvinists do not put Calvinism on the same level as the Gospel? Are you passing juidgement on me about whether I am a Christian or not? I do not oppose the Gospel, but you are so emotionally committed to Calvinism that you seem to believe that anyone who is not a Calvinist is opposed to the Gospel. Not even Edwin Palmer would agree with you. In fact, he said Arminians are fellow believers in Christ. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but like some Calvinists, your perfectionist tendencies won't permit you to admit any mistakes in either theology or judgment. Actually, one of the comforts of Calvinism is the understanding that God is the ONLY perfect one in the equation. :-) When I was (FR5th Amendment) I tried and tried to be perfect, failing every time. Now, God is sovereign, I am not. :-)

[P-Marlowe]

It it simultaneous (logical order, remember).

It cannot be simultaneous. Man MUST first repent and believe. That is something that happens in a temporal order. It occurs within time. The act of regeneration occurs in eternity. Thus it is clear that unless and until man has repented and believed, he cannot be regenerated. If it occurs before or at the same time, then there is no need for the gospel. If it occurs before repentance and belief, then it would have to occur temporally even before the person was ever created. Thus it is not a new birth, but merely an extension of the original birth. They would have been born regenerated in the first place.

So if the cross was not necessary as a point of reference for belief and repentance in order for man to be regenerated, then what was the purpose of the cross?

If man is regenerated and made a new creature in Christ before he repents or believes, then there is no separation between man and God because of sin. God gets around the sin problem not by sacrificing his son, but by regenerating people before they repent, by forgiving them before they have come to the cross, by unconditionally accepting them before they fall down and worship him.

The new birth is clearly and unequivocally the result of repentance and belief, and not the cause.

[CCWoody]

I think one must be born again before one can truly comprehend the Kingdom of God. ~ ctd

Ahhh, I see. You must have both a blind and irrational belief to be saved.

I'll confess to Jesus, the Mormon Jesus, but God will honor that confession because I can't comprehend the kingdom of God until after I'm born again. All that matters is that I have some kind of confession and some kind of belief. It doesn't even matter if I change the gospel or if I change any verse.

It makes sense. I bet you think that the Bible isn't really translated correctly either.

Woody.