As a case in point, look at Post #458 of the "How To Be Born Again" thread:
"In a nutshell, I cannot reconcile that God fordained/predestined every sin committed by every man while also maintaining that man is responsible for all his sins."
Now, it is precisely this position that the Calvinist holds. You might call it a paradox or you might call it contradictory. Nevertheless, this is precisely what we believe that the Scripture teaches.
The two most common examples are Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23.
In Genesis 50:20, we see that Joseph tells his brothers that God brought him into slavery and Egypt (and it was good) while his brothers brought him into slavery and into Egypt (and it was evil). It is rather clear that God indeed ordained these events to transpire while at the very same time his brothers were morally responsible for their evil deeds.
In Acts 2:23, we see that Peter addresses the people of Jerusalem and tells them that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pre-ordained. Yet, at the very same time, Peter tells the crowd that it was "wicked hands" that murdered Jesus. It is rather clear that this is another situation were the people that carried out the murder of Jesus were responsible for their sin even though God had pre-ordained all the events of the cross.
Now, the poster quoted above has already admitted he cannot accept such a interpretation. This is what I mean when I say that Arminians interpret their Scripture in the light of philosophical rationalism.
In other words, a specific interpretation must be rational without logical conflict in order for it to be true.
When pressed on these passages, the FR Arminians have given me several different re-interpretations of Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23.
Consistent with all the answers I get is that the correct interpretation cannot possibly be that God has pre-ordained these events and at the same time the people who carried out these events were responsible. They all unanimously have rejected that outright.
The various re-interpretations of these passages I have received are:
This is, to be blunt, one of the stupidest answers I have received. For if these individuals were not responsible for their actions since these actions were pre-ordained by God, then why oh why would they need to be forgiven of them in the first place?????
This is quite obviously playing fast and loose with the text, but is another great example of how the text is interpreted in the light of their philosophical rationalism.
No, I take it back. THIS answer is the most stupid I have received.
Nonetheless, it is rather obvious that the Arminian absolutely refuses to entertain the very possibility that the correct interpretation is as the Calvinist says it is. They cannot do so because that interpretation, as the poster cited above admits, "cannot be reconciled". Since it cannot be reconciled, it is automatically rejected as a possibility.
This is, as I have pointed out, interpreting Scripture in the light of philosophical rationalism.
And the philosohpical paradigm at the center of this rationalism is the philosophy of "Free-Will" which is automatically presumed to be the central issue of sotierology.
Jean
As it was Genesis, so it is today.