No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.
Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.
Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.
I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.
Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery, rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.
If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification
If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification
Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation!
You: I thought this was about Calvinists!
Me: Patience, my son. Patience
Calvinists believe in a doctrine called “perseverance of the saints.” Normally, we don’t like the phrase “Once saved, always saved” (even though, technically, we believe this). A little better is the designation “eternal security.” But our favorite is “perseverance of the saints.” We believe that the elect will persevere in their faith until the end. Therefore, if one is among the elect, she cannot lose her seat in heaven.
One would think this would bring a great deal of assurance among Calvinists concerning their security. Their faith is a gift of God and he will never take it back. The elect are secure.
Now, as many of you know, I have quite a significant ministry dealing with Christians who are doubting their faith for one reason or another. Jude 22 says “have mercy on those who doubt.” I don’t think we do this enough. We avoid doubters like the plague, not knowing how to minister to them. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists deal with doubters according to one of two theological clichés. If they leave the faith, they were never saved to begin with. If they are elect, they will not leave faith. End of story.
There are three primary reasons Christians doubt. The first has to do with objective intellectual issues. These doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, Christ’s resurrection, and even God’s existence (among other things). Another group doubts God’s love and presence in their lives. The last group doubts their salvation and the reality of their faith. These are always wondering if they have true saving faith or a false faith. This last group lacks assurance.
It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.
Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
I have my theories. Let me share them, but I am interested in your thoughts.
Here we go (close your ears Baptists): I think we make too much of the doctrine of assurance. I don’t know if it is paramount for a believer to always be absolutely assured that he is a believer. John Hannah, one of my favorite profs at Dallas Seminary, said one time in class, “I am ninety percent sure I am saved . . . but I am only ten percent sure of that.” He would say things like this, knowing it would disturb most of his Evangelical students’ foundations, causing them to think more deeply. I thought if John Hannah is not one hundred percent sure he is saved, how can anyone be? I did not know whether to rethink my Baptist upbringing or take John Hannah out into the hall and share the Gospel with him. Eventually, it caused me to rethink my understanding of assurance. I don’t think there is any reason why we have to be absolutely certain we are saved at every moment. When we present the Gospel to someone and they say they have trusted in Christ, we do them a disservice to force assurance upon them. After all, how do we know that their faith is real? We don’t. Instead of assurance, maybe we should give them some of the Hebrews warning passages. Maybe we should speak to them as Christ spoke to the seven churches in Revelation: “to him who overcomes . . .” Maybe we should encourage them to “test their faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Maybe we should warn them that there is a possible disqualification. (1 Cor. 9:27). This may not fit into your thinking, but we all know there is a faith that does not save (James 2:19). Why not bring this up?
You see, people in our tradition often believe it is anathema to test your faith. To even bring up the possibility of our faith not being real scares us. Why? Because if it is not real, in our sometimes distorted thinking, it is God’s fault and there is nothing we can do about it. We are either elect or not and all that can happen if we examine our faith is bring about the terrifying possibility of reprobation.
I think, for so many of us, the issues are as black and white as they can be. We are caught up in this modernistic ideal of absolutes. Either you know with one hundred percent infallible certainty that we are saved – or we have no certainty at all. But I think our certainty is relative to our situation. The question is never Are you elect? That is a question only for God. The question is Do you believe right now? If you do, you can know you have eternal life. Could you be wrong? Could your faith be false? Could your trust in the Lord be like that of the second and third soils of Christ’s parable? Those that sprung up quickly but faded away? Sure. But the solution is not to divine the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance. They know how to test their faith and they do all they can to keep it. Calvinists often just get paralyzed in fear thinking they are not among the elect and have their hands tied. When, truth be told, we should respond very much like Arminians with regard to the stability of our faith. We do everything to persevere (which I would love to expand on, but I don’t have the space). Our theology demands that when we do persevere, we know that it was God who would not ever let us go, not us who would never let him go. Therefore, we understand our faith was not of ourselves. But this fact does not help much in situations when our faith needs to be tested. We simply do not have a magic decoder ring to determine if we are truly elect.
You ask me: Michael, do you know you are saved? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, do you have assurance? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, why do you believe you are saved? My answer: because today I am still believing. But I have to test this all the time, as I am not infallible. I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do. This ninety percent assurance will have to do. The witness of the Spirit I have today is enough for today. Tomorrow I will examine myself again. But my assurance does not have to be absolute and comprehensive. While the Catholics went way overboard on their “anathemas” (I mean, come on, guys . . .), I do think they are right to warn against any necessity of infallible assurance. Once we learn to test ourselves, the times of doubt will lead to productive action, not paralyzing fear.
867 replies to "Doubting Calvinists"
TUAD,
You just don’t see the difference do you?
If God knows what reprobate will choose if given an actual choice is not the same thing as saying that God decrees something and there is only one choice involved–what He has decreed.
Cherylu: “… God foreknew something because He was omniscient and knew before reprobate made his/her choice what that choice would be.”
Cherylu,
If this “difference” makes you happy with God’s decrees (and God decreed that every Reprobate ever born be born), then be happy with God’s decrees. Prometheus is happy to accept it. Cherylu, be happy with God’s decrees.
I believe Jay was giving a rough ad hoc to the corporate idea in Robert Shank’s older book: Life in the Son? Indeed Romans 9 does appear to be only corporate in the sense of historic Israel first, but with verse 8 Paul brings to light the children of the promise, and certainly Rebekah’s coming birth of twins from Isaac: “for though the twins were not yet born and had not gone anything GOOD or BAD, so that God’s purpose according to His choice (election) would stand (remain), not because of works but because of Him who calls, etc.” (Rom. 9: 11) What could be more plain that here we have the corporate and individual of certain Jews and Gentiles, verses 22, 23, 24!
Indeed we need to be doing more biblical exegesis here, in our theological statements! Both Calvinist and Arminian.
i.e. the corporate & individual doctrine of the Election of Grace (in both Jews & Gentiles). This is Romans 9!
@cherylu: When God looks at the so-called reprobate, according to the Infralapsarianism position: he is seeing one in the place of the Fall (the sinner, and He leaves him there…to go his on way), again the theological position that God’s decree to save “follows” logically (not temporarily) the decision to create and permit the Fall.
BTW TUAD,
I haven’t figured out why I should be happy to accept something just because Prometheus is happy to accept it! 🙂 Besides, I am not at all sure that you aren’t using the quote from Prometheus in a way that he never intended.
And in case you think that Arminians don’t believe that God makes decrees, (which your line of questions and comments leads to think may be the case), that is not true. It is the nature of the decrees made that is in question here rather then if He makes decrees or not.
We should note too, that God did not choose to forgive and redeem the angels that sinned and followed Lucifer, their judgment is certain also! Note Paul calls some “the elect angels.” (1 Tim. 5: 21)…Here the election is to God’s purpose & goodness.
Cherylu: “I haven’t figured out why I should be happy to accept something just because Prometheus is happy to accept it!”
Cherylu, are you happy to accept God’s decrees? Yes? No?
Indeed God’s Decrees are eternal, and come from His will, plan and Covenant/covenants! (Heb. 13: 20)
Fr Robert,
I am aware that is the Infralapsarian position. Truly I am not ignorant of Calvinism as you once asserted I was!
The difference though is that he is left there–with no offer of salvation being made or possible for him.
TUAD,
I reckon we all have to accept God’s decrees. That doesn’t mean that we can’t question someone else’s understanding of them. Or think for that matter that there may very well be something wrong with that understanding because it just doesn’t seem to fit very well with the totality of Scripture. And it seems to make God’s character quite schizophrenic, for lack of a better word. And I will admit I am not happy about that. And I don’t know that the word “schizophrenic” is really a very accurate description for what I am trying to say. But I can’t come up with a better word at the moment.
Cherylu, God decreed that every Reprobate ever born be born. These Reprobates had no choice in whether to be born or not.
Cherylu, are you happy to accept God’s decrees such as the aforementioned decree above? Yes? No?
And always remember that infralapsarianism still holds that God unconditionally decreed all things, including the wickedness of the wicked so that the definitive cause of them being wicked is God’s decree. It was God who chose for them to sin, and that is ultimately why they sin and are wicked. So those he chooses to pass by and not save are in that state needing salvation ultimately and definitively because God chose for them to be that way in such a way that they could not have done anything else but what they did and be any pother way than they are.
cherylu: You cannot see it appears that the sinner left to himself, just does not want God (the true God), but wants to go his/her own way! So at judgment they go smartly off to their own eternity without God In Christ, and no doubt they really want it that way! (Jude 10 ; 13-15)… Btw note verse 6, as to the lost angels!
TUAD,
You have already been answered on this stuff. See comments #173, 196, 198, 210, 228, 230, 232. Now, it may just be that your are not “happy” with the answers you have received, but that doesn’t mean they do not adequately address the supposed problem you are trying to press here.
@ “A”: So why did not God choose to save and forgive the sinful angels?
Arminian and Arminianperspectives, God decreed that every Reprobate ever born, be born. These Reprobates had no choice in whether to be born or not.
Arminian and Arminianperspectives, are you happy to accept God’s decrees such as the aforementioned decree above? Yes? No?
@ “A”: As to # 75… That’s not completely true, as God is not the author of evil! YOU don’t know Reformed doctrine of theology, fully!
Btw, “A” and “AP”, I thought you guys were done here, this blog?
Fr Robert,
Yep, and how did he get that way? He got that way because God decreed to permit the fall, or in some versions of Calvinism did not just decree to permit it but actively decreed it, and He also decreed that each person born of Adam’s seed after that would be born with a totally depraved nature so that he just does not want God (the true God), but wants to go his/her own way! And then He totally refuses to offer that one any help. So even the fact that he doesn’t want God is God’s decree, is it not?
So how exactly is saying he doesn’t want God–when that is according to God’s decree–make this any different?
Jay writes,
To Arminian. Calvinists aren’t stupid. We know Shank’s absurd doctine of Life in the Son,Corporate election.
I think you are meaning to reference “Elect in the Son”, Shanks second book. And what is absurd about our life and election being “in the Son?” That is one of the most basic and glaringly obvious Biblical themes in Paul, not to mention the NT.
Just another variation of God predestinates the plan,not the man.
Actually, it’s not. Statements like this make it hard to believe that you have actually read Shank’s book, or any other solid work on corporate election, like the one’s we recommend and linked to earlier in this thread. None of them hold that God predestined “the plan” and not “the man.” There may be some versions of Arminianism that hold to that, but not the one’s we referenced.
So inRomans 9 God’s mercy is shown to Nations running and willing to set themselves up or to a moving corporate body of contingent individuals who have free willed their way into the body of Christ,and may Free -will their way out ,so one can never say what specific indiduals will be eternally in Christ,until history ends,if then.
It is hard to decipher this sentence, but it seems you are a little confused again. The corporate view has a robust view of the individual in election. It is just that election of the individual is not primary, but secondary, contingent on their being joined to the elect Body of Christ (the covenant people of God).
See my next comment which addresses the rest.
Btw, “A” and “AP”, I thought you guys were done here, this blog?
Guess they must of decreed to change their mind!
Jay writes,
Pure nonsense. But the amusing part was the statement “God has been forced to use them through their failure.”..I have sad news for Arminians. Your not going to force God to do anything. He won’t be forced.
OK, this comes from the post Arminian referred to that I wrote in response to a post CMP did on Rom. 9:19 long ago. Here is the full paragraph (with comment Jay quoted in bold):
“This brings us to Paul’s use of the Potter imagery which draws on Jeremiah 18. Rather than being used at this present time for noble purposes, the Jews are being used for “common use” in that they are still serving God’s purposes, but not in the way that God originally intended. God has been forced to use them through their failure rather than through their obedience and faithfulness. God had noble purposes for Israel, but they could not be fulfilled due to their rejection and rebellion. Therefore, God endured them as objects of wrath just as He endured and sustained Pharaoh while simultaneously preparing objects of glory even through their rebellion and stubbornness (in the case of Israel God continued to enact His plan to send the Messiah through Israel [by whom He would prepare a people for glory] despite Israel’s continual rebellion and rejection of God and His covenant).”
If you look at the entire paragraph, you will see that I am not using the word “forced” in an objectionable way. Just look at what God says in Jeremiah 18:7-12, for example, and it should be clear what I was getting at. Still, looking back, it may not have been the best way to express it since it could give the wrong impression.
God Bless,
Ben
Btw, “A” and “AP”, I thought you guys were done here, this blog?
I thought I was too.
TUAD,
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Yes? or No?
See how that works? Try framing the question appropriately, and then you might get an answer. You can start by reviewing what we have already said about it in those comments I referred you to.
@cherylu: Wow that # 84 was bad! I’m off for a bit..
Maybe later?
Fr Robert,
That # 84 was aimed at those who keep asking if reprobate decides to do something did reprobate decree it would happen. And yes, it was meant to be humorous.
Cherylu, #158: “all I can say is that for the greatest share of humanity it would of been better indeed if they had never been born.”
Reprobate in Hell, an unelect Arminian: (Moaning in Misery)”This is so horrible. Horrible. This is so bad. Oh God, I wish I was never born. I wish I was never born!”
Sovereign God: “I decreed that you be conceived and born.”
Reprobate in Hell: “I wish you didn’t decree that I be born. Do you hear me! You foreknew that I would choose Hell before I was even conceived. And yet you still decreed that I be born. I did not want to be born. You are a moral monster!! I hate your decrees.”
Sovereign God: “Yes, you are right. I did foreknow that you would choose Hell before you were even conceived, and yet I deigned and decreed that you be born. I am sovereign.”
Cherylu (#85),
Correct, as I wrote in the post I referred Greg to earlier before he began insisting that I write an article on epistemology,
To say that God “permits” sin to come about “necessarily” is nothing more than saying that God “established a world” in which sin happens of necessity. In the Edwards/Piper/Calvinist scheme, man is powerless to control his nature. Man is powerless to choose or act contrary to “strongest motive force.” Man, likewise, has no control over which motive will indeed be the “strongest” and so irresistibly move his will in a certain direction. All these things are necessitated by the eternal all-encompassing decree of God. Adam’s sin, mankind’s consequent fallen nature, and every subsequent thought, motive, desire, and act are necessitated by eternal divine decree. A person can no more resist or act contrary to the eternal divine decree than he or she could create a universe. How then can we speak of God merely “permitting” these “necessitated” sinful acts?
Even if we speak of God “permitting” the person to sin in accordance with his nature without, perhaps, actually causing the nature to produce the sin, the point is undone when we remember that man’s nature was necessitated as well as the cause and effect relationship between the “nature” and “act” that “infallibly” produces not only the sin, but the specific sin that was decreed to be performed by the person from all eternity. This must include the sinful intentions as well, since all things come by God’s “fatherly hand.”
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
Is anyone else still having trouble commenting here? Either I have to wait for several minutes for something to post, or have to close the window and then reopen it. If I do that it posts immediately. Of course, I have then lost the edit option in the process.
TUAD,
Take a look at those comments I referred you to, especially the ones by Arminian, which completely invalidate your argument. If you are going to dismiss the way he handled your argument, at least interact with it and show how his answer wasn’t valid. You are starting to sound like a broken record.
And let’s not forget, that in your theology, being born and living on this earth is supposedly an act of grace and love by God toward the reprobate, so maybe you need to think about the problems your argument creates for your own theories.
Fr Robert (comment 80),
It may be that I know Calvinism better than you based on your comment. it is amazing that I objectively described the Calvinist position and you seem to infer that it would mean that God is the author of evil, but deny that is what Calvinism teaches. Did God unconditionally decree all things? The Calvinist position is yes. Does all things in that statement include all sin and evil? The Calvinist answer is again yes. That makes all I said true. And if any part of it is not true of the Calvinist position, please identify it. But since it is all true, it is a proper deduction that the logical implication (not direct claim) of Calvinist theology is that God is the author of sin and evil, which of course is massively unbiblical.
(continued from #91)
Reprobate in Hell, an unelect Arminian: “Obviously, I’m an apostate. I believe in Libertarian Free Will. I heard about all the assurances of my salvation from all my evangelical arminian friends. But they were worthless. It’s all my fault I’m suffering here in Hell. But really, it’s God’s fault. I blame Him. He foreknew that I would apostasize even before I was born, yet He still decreed that I be born. I didn’t choose to be born. I didn’t choose to be born! I didn’t choose to be born! I couldn’t have apostasized if I was never born!
God, turn back time! Make it so that I was never born. I don’t want to exist. I don’t want to be in Hell anymore.”
Sovereign God: “I decreed that you be born.”
Reprobate in Hell: “Why? Why! Why? Why? Why?”
Greg,
It really bothers you that you can’t bend me to your will, huh?
As to the presupposition of free will in the Bible, I already referenced more than one article on the subject, one written by me (see #413) and one written by Glen Shellrude (see #412). I also commented on several of your posts regarding how your language was inconsistent with your deterministic presuppositions, which (as you like to say) you “ignored.” (see especially, # 479). That holds true for the Bible as well (see Shellrude and my post below) as the language in the Bible likewise presupposes free will and reduces to nonsense if determinism is presupposed instead.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/glen-shellrude-calvinism-and-problematic-readings-of-new-testament-texts-or-why-i-am-not-a-calvinist/
And here is the one that I wrote, which is far less detailed.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/the-reality-of-choice-and-the-testimony-of-scripture/
I will tend to your question on corporate election in another post, but I wonder if you read any of the articles we linked to on corporate election, particularly “Corporate Election Quotes” and “Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election.” (see #341)
TUAD,
See #97. Repeating an already refuted argument over and over doesn’t make it any less refuted.
Greg, (102)
I am proclaiming a comprehensive system of theology, philosophy and ethics, from which absolutely NO minute particle of existence… spiritual, metaphysical, natural, logical or practical, is or can be excluded.
No doubt you are proclaiming it (asserting it). The problem is you haven’t produced a coherent argument that Calvinism must stand behind a system of epistemology in order for it to be valid.
TUAD
I/we still state that it is quite a different thing to end up in hell because you made a choice–a choice that you actually had even if God knew ahead of time that you would make that choice–and to be born with no choice at all.
Trying to conflate the two simply does not work. In one scenario you/reprobate bear the responsibility. In the other God very directly bears the responsibility. Don’t try and tell us they are the same. They are not.
Greg,
I hope your Calvinist brothers that you also disagree with are glad to know that you are the one that is 100% right and they are not! 🙂
Thank you for your prayers. Am better but it is not gone. And now my Hubby has it too.
Arminian in Heaven: “I/we still state that it is quite a different thing to end up in hell because you made a choice–a choice that you actually had even if God knew ahead of time that you would make that choice–and to be born with no choice at all.”
Apostate Arminian in Hell: “I did not choose to be born! Plus, does that thought really and truly comfort you? I can see why you’re happy that God decreed that you be born, but I’m utterly miserable and in agony because God decreed that I be born. Do you have any understanding at all of what I’m saying?”
TUAD,
To which I would answer, “You made your choice your own choice.”
And I am utterly tired of this word game.
Greg writes,
Oh yeah. Are we saying then that corporate election relieves God of the charge of individual election in Romans 9?
Are you sure you can properly discuss a subject like this with me when I haven’t yet written a definitive article on epistemology? 😉
The individual election described in Rom. 9 with regards to the patriarchs has reference to God’s divine right to choose who will be His corporate Covenant Head (through whom His people will be reckoned/named).
Individuals are elected as a consequence of their identification with the covenant Head, ultimately ending in the Seed (Christ) in whom God’s people are elect, due to their identification with Him through faith.
Romans 11:16-24 offers a perfect illustration of the proper relationship between corporate and individual election in Romans 9-11. One comes to be a part of the elect people by faith, and can likewise be broken off through unbelief (making that person no longer a part of God’s chosen people, and therefore no longer elect). So election is primarily corporate, and secondarily individual.
Greg,
My offers continue to stand as well. But I don’t know why you would want to waste your time with someone who hasn’t the first flickering clue about what he is talking about. But that is easier to say than to actually argue for your position, I guess. So, I suppose I have my answer as well.
God Bless,
Ben
Arminian in Heaven: “I/we still state that it is quite a different thing to end up in hell because you made a choice–a choice that you actually had even if God knew ahead of time that you would make that choice–and to be born with no choice at all.”
Apostate Arminian in Hell: “I did not choose to be born! Plus, does that thought really and truly comfort you? I can see why you’re happy that God decreed that you be born, but I’m utterly miserable and in agony because God decreed that I be born. Do you have any understanding at all of what I’m saying?”
Arminian in Heaven: “You made your choice your own choice.”
Apostate Arminian in Hell: “Didn’t you hear what I just said!! I. Did. Not. Choose. To. Be. Born. Do you understand?? I did not have a choice!”
Arminian in Heaven: “And I am utterly tired of this word game.”
Apostate Arminian in Hell: “How arrogant and unloving.”
Greg writes,
Not because I’m smarter than they are, but because I deliberately think differently than they do.
What does that mean, you deliberately think differently than we do, given your fundamental deterministic presuppositions? It’s an honest question. I am really trying to understand you here; trying to get that first flickering clue.
TUAD,
Arminian in Heaven: “And I am utterly tired of this word game.”
If that isn’t a perfect example of taking things someone said out of context, I don’t know what is. Seems like you have been accused of that here before. Why don’t you quit?
TUAD (Broken Record),
See comment #101.
Arminian in Heaven: “Did you love Libertarian Free Will while you were on Earth?”
Apostate Arminian in Hell: “Yes. But I’m in eternal suffering in Hell because God decreed that I be born.”
TUAD (Broken Record),
See comment #101.
See comment #101.
See comment #101.
See comment #101.
See comment #101.
See comment #101.
See comment #101.
TUAD,
One more time, see comment # 101. The two are not the same and can not be conflated.
To arminians
God elects all those he forsees will believe in Christ.At this point Calvinists would say that God is careful to elect those who elect themselves.Kind of like men first elect God,and God elects men. It is man who decides who will actually be saved,not God.God votes for you to go to heaven,Satan votes for you to go to hell,and you decide the election.Now man in time,man believes and then becomes born again.Now believers believe. So men,by their free will,with a helping hand from God,become believers,if only for a moment,and then are born again.Since they are already believers,why would they have to be born again?
Jay,
I think you are referring to regeneration before faith, am I correct?
If you are, the answer is, of course, that Arminians believe that the Bible teaches that faith comes before regeneration, that faith is necessary to be born again.