John 3:16 Support for Arminianism?

I was watching the Journey Home on EWTN. This issue came up with regard to Eternal Security. Maybe Bill G or Russell (or anyone else) would care to jump in here. The argument goes that *believes* (pisteuo) in Him is in the present tense and therefore signifies a current act on our part. Coupled with Hebrews 6 it seems to imply the involvement of our free will and the ability to lose ones salvation.

North

 

Why do you think the tense prove that, North?

 

Hey North~~~

Just keep reading until you get to John 6:44

 

In anticipation of Levicoff's criticism, certainly the above has to do with distance learning as its subject is earthly hearts being educated by heavenly instruction

 

SUBSTANTIVES, not "subjunctives."...in case Unk reads this.

 

Hi Everyone

I guess I'll bite too on this one.

I've had the benefit of comming to salvation through a woman who was Arminian and went to that style of church for a large portion of my life. Recently, oh around three years ago I started going to a few Calvinistic churches. I am a member of a Southern Baptist church even as we speak! I've long studied and debated the issues of predestination, double predestination, eternal security and all the other issues that usuall cause veins to bulge in fellow believers when the subject is broached. It was good to study each school of thought from their own perspective.

Eternal Security was a tough issue for me. Nevertheless, after a lot of study, and hearing ministers preach I have inclined towards believing it's true. That we are truely "sealed" unto the day of redemption.

That said, and I'm sure it opened up a can of worms, I want to deal with this issue of predestination, for that is the crux of this thread. I am still undecided on this issue. Both schools of thought have strong arguements, at least in my opinion. The first view I want to advocate is the Arminian side.

God is truely soverign, this I do not doubt. However, how far do we go with this line of reasoning? If all goes according to His predestined plan is there then no free will at all? Why would God tell people to come if, in fact, they couldn't? Why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem saying, " Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, How I longed to gather you as a hen does her chicks, but you would not have me." It sounds as though they excersised at least some form of choice, doesn't it? When I commit an act of sin, or simply choose to eat hamburgers rather than hotdogs did I do it according to some divine plan? God's foreknowledge of our decisions before the foundations of the world were laid enable Him to know all and direct all while not crushing free will. Does God so love the world, or just the chosen? How is love shown by forcing damnation? What kind of love says "no chance, buddy"? What does "world" mean in the Greek?

Next the Calvinist would possibly answer something like this:

We shouldn't focus on who won't make it, but rather on the fact that He, in His soverign plan, saved us. That we are His people hand picked by Him for His glory. After all, it's all about His glory, and His will that we were chosen. Didn't Paul state in Romans Chapter Nine something to the effect that who are we to tell God that He's not fair. God will choose whomever He will. Further, noone comes unless drawn by the Father, and since grace is irresistable if you're saved it's by divine decree and God put it in you to say yes, even if it was to take many trials and breakings. Just as He chose Israel, and they didn't choose Him, likewise He chose us not us Him. We have free will, however, that is limited. We can choose to eat hotdogs, but not choose Jesus.

Of course, I've only scratched the surface. Both schools of thought could say a whole lot more than I did. Also, hopefully I did no disservice to either view. I am curious as to what the board has to say on this manner. So come, oh great scholars, and show me what you got.

Kevin

 

Bill,

As I have visited Baptist and other evangelical congregations, I could not help being impressed by the emphasis on "coming to Jesus," "confessing your sins" and "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord". If I do these things, I am told, I will be "saved". This appears to be quite different than what I read on this forum. Are they wrong?

The TULIP form of Calvinism that I appear to be reading here seems to be quite at odds with the preaching and evangelizing that I am receiving from well-meaning and devoted Chrsitians.

Also, it appears that having an imperfect or incorrect view of certain doctrines (such as the Trinity) is sufficient to exclude one from salvation (at least in the view of many).

Tony

 

Yes, I agree with that. Obviously religious belief and practice are conditional on spatial-temporal circumstance.

Yes, I think that's right.

Blinding lights and voices aren't in themselves probitive. Miracles have little to do with the divine, I think.

One can take LSD and see visions far more fascinating than a blinding light. If a helicopter hovered over an ancient city, the citizens would interpret it as a supernatural visitation. Schizophrenia is noted for aural hallucinations, which can easily be confused with divine communications.

My point is that sensory experiences don't directly reveal the divine. The best they can do is to reveal something extraordinary. There needs to be... something else... that links an extraordinary event to a divine source, and not to an unknown natural cause, to a demonic source or to something else whose existence we have no inkling of.

Good question.

If something besides light-shows or conjurer's tricks is necessary, is that inner movement of self-transformation something that we perform for ourselves, or something that a divine agency performs in us?

If we perform the movement ourselves, is everyone equally situated to perform it? Or must one be born into the proper circumstances and then build on it by some acquisition of religious knowledge and wisdom? Or is the movement so basic and fundamental that anyone can perform it anywhere at any time?

If the transformative movement is the result of divine intervention, then perhaps it falls on those upon whom it falls. Some are chosen and some are not. There is no rhyme or reason to it, from our perspective.

Or perhaps the divine transformation is only the final seal on a human motion. Perhaps the divine and human move in unison. God's act remains absolutely necessary, but God only acts in proportion to our own acts.

But that doesn't really answer the question. If God only responds to Christians, then only those who live in a Christian social context and who perform the human part of the human/divine co-movement in a properly Christian way will receive a divine response.

That makes salvation simply an accident of birth, a fluke of historical circumstance and ultimately as devoid of rhyme and reason as God's random predestination independent of anything that we do.

Ultimately there seems to me to be something dangerously circular about all this. If we can only know that our experiences are related to the divine by enjoying some inner transformation, and if it is up to us to perform some part of that inner motion ourselves, how can we be sure which claimant to divinity is the proper object for the transformation? What keeps us from embracing false gods?

And even if the transformation is completely out of our hands, how can true faith be distinguished from madness? Total certainty clearly isn't any more probitive than miracles and wonders. Often the most unshakeably convinced individuals are the most terribly and utterly lost.

The question isn't so much whether all have the opportunity to believe, since everyone already believes in something. The point is how to make sense of the (purported) opportunity to believe in transcendent things correctly.

 

Hi Bill D

My reference to miracles as stimulators to faith was niched in a discussion of the Biblical doctrine which relates man's will, God, and predestination to salvation. Of course you are right that drugs etc might occasion voices or visions, but that is out of the context of which I offered my comment. The Bible clearly speaks of miracles as occasioning at times faith and regularly connects miracles to the divine, and that is what I referenced. Of course one can expand the discussion by disregarding the Scripture take on miracles, I don't see why then a discussion of the Scripture's position on predestination would be profitable. As you have, I believe, before noted, one's assumptions, as my belief in inerrancy, determines often ones conclusions. Thanks for your comments..well said as usual.

 

Originally posted by Bill Grover


Tony :As I have visited Baptist and other evangelical congregations, I could not help being impressed by the emphasis on "coming to Jesus," "confessing your sins" and "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior and Lord". If I do these things, I am told, I will be "saved". This appears to be quite different than what I read on this forum. Are they wrong?

Bill: Tony, very nice to see you back. I believe there many kinds of Baptists including "free will Baptists." They are not wrong in my opinion to say that if one believes then one is saved.

==

Tony: But is not belief an act of will? (unless, of course, God makes us believe). When I read Jesus proclaiming "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved , but whoever does not believe will be damned" I do not see Calvinistic divine election.


Tony: The TULIP form of Calvinism that I appear to be reading here seems to be quite at odds with the preaching and evangelizing that I am receiving from well-meaning and devoted Christians.

Bill: Some of the greatest of missionaries and evangelistic preachers have been staunch Calvinists (as St Paul, heh, heh).

==

Tony: Well, I think that I would rather think of Calvin as a Paulist (heh, heh) since many can (and do) read Paul and come to somewhat different conclusions than did John Calvin.


Bill: Remember too Tony that my questions may not precisely mesh with my tenets. I like to encourage myself to think by asking questions.

==

Tony: That's only because you're one of them learned folk who believes that your brain, like your body, requires exercise.


Tony: Also, it appears that having an imperfect or incorrect view of certain doctrines (such as the Trinity) is sufficient to exclude one from salvation (at least in the view of many).

Bill: Imperfect view of Christ=no salvation? Well, I don't see how that could be. Wayne Grudem is wrong in my opinion in his fixation with the Son's role subordination. I do not accept the essentiation of the Son as in the Nicaene creed. Tony there are wide variances in the Christology among evangelicals. But all today would agree to the essential unity of the trinal Persons. But in Church history this was not always the case as in Tertullian.

==

Tony: Well, perhaps I should have been clearer. I have been told emphatically by well-meaning, devoted Calvinist Southern Baptists that my believing points of doctrine that differ from evangelical protestant views will preclude me from salvation. My response has been like yours: "Well, I don't see how that could be." From the point of view of divine election and irrestible grace (the heart of the Arminian/Calvin debate) it does not seem to make sense, yet hundres of "counter-cult" ministries are based upon this contradiction. That is why I made the post, not to inflame or to accuse, but to see if someone could clarify this for me.


Bill: On the other hand , as you know, the incarnation , that is, that Christ came enfleshed was by John considered an essential for salvation. The issue between you and me is what was Christ before that event.

Tony: Agreed. The Incarnation of Christ is fundamental as is His Resurrection. Amazingly, many who deny these tenets are called Christians, and wish to deny me (who hold both the Incarnation and the Resurrection as true and essential) the same.

What was Christ before the Incarnation? MY belief is that He was "I AM". Now as to the nature of the "oneness" within the Godhead, I am certain that we have our differences. I like you anyway


Bill: I certainly do not want to argue.

That is why I asked you. Arguing goes nowhere. However, I have the blessing of frequenting a discussion forum with learned people not of my faith who are generous with their opinions and results of study. I decided to utilize the modality of this wonderful asynchronous communication technology to learn from you, rather than to argue with you.

See, there is a distance learning connection to this after all!

Best wishes, my friend.

Tony

 

I never pretended to share your context. I have a context of my own (which is one of the difficulies you raised). I was trying to identify some of the basic issues and to restate them in a wider context that I'm capable of understanding.

I'm not "disregarding the Scripture take on miracles" as much as I'm asking for an explanation of it. As I tried to suggest, this speaks precisely to the issue of what "faith" and "grace" are, and how they work in people's lives.

Christians have preached at me all of my life. The style varies, but the one constant is that I am called on to do something. But no Christian has ever been willing to tell me precisely what I must do, let alone how to do it.

These are questions of tremendous personal importance to me, and I will continue to wrestle with them. It's all that I can do.

I retain the forlorn and increasingly lonely hope that someone from within Christianity might be willing to talk to me and perhaps to help me.

I don't think that these considerations are irrelevant to Jacobus Arminius either. If God wills that all be saved and if it is our belief or disbelief that has predestined each of us to salvation or damnation, then the matter of how one comes to true as opposed to false belief and how grace manifests in a human life become crucial, I would think.