Are Arminians cult or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael Doyle

Puritan Board Junior
I thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. Albeit my brothers and sisters of the "Arminean" ilk are sometimes very frustrating, they are nonetheless, just that, my Christian brethren as they are Trinitarian and believe in the essential doctrines as stated in the Nicene creed. :2cents:
 

ewenlin

Puritan Board Junior
Dao, Rev 3:20-22 should not be interpreted soteriologically. They are talking about a church.
Oh, What would be the quote that would fit something like I said? Something the Arminians use frequently.
Soteriology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I had to look that word up: Christian soteriology is the study of how God ends the separation people have from him due to sin by reconciling them with himself.
The Arminians do use that text in the past 50 years or so although I think its less frequent now. It's used to show the need for a unbeliever to "open his heart" to receive Jesus, basically in witnessing.

I think what Todd was stressing was that while Calvinists still do chose Christ, we did it after God regenerated our hearts. The difference with arminians is they assert regeneration comes after the so called choice. It basically boils down to one's view of man. Totally depraved or not.
 

Dao

Puritan Board Freshman
I thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. . . .
I've studied much about the other so-called cult such as Chinese, Japanese, and India philosophies as well as Taoist, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc and I have put my foot in my mouth on subjects like these. It common for such religions to say that the mind can't comprehend and understand the language of God, if spoken as well as dualities as two spaces being the same space or being at two places at the same time. After learning all this along with Calvinism, I can see something positive about the salvation plan. "Positive" is another word that can be very new age terms. After learning positive thoughts by looking ahead in my imaginary mind, I turn my daydreams into reality. This type of thinking are banned by some Christians. To me, Calvinism gives me a strong positive thinking. Thinking that God does the work and guarantees salvation is certainly is positive and helps me enhance my thoughts about myself. Otherwise, if we think the way Arminians do and try to save ourselves, we won't get positive about that. It's negative thinking to pretend to do something impossible.
 

busdriver72

Puritan Board Freshman
[quoteI thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. Albeit my brothers and sisters of the "Arminean" ilk are sometimes very frustrating, they are nonetheless, just that, my Christian brethren as they are Trinitarian and believe in the essential doctrines as stated in the Nicene creed.][/quote]
Thanks for posting that.
I have studied the Arminean vs. Calvinism theologies.
I once read somehere that unless you're an expert in the opposing view, you're not really qualified to pass judgment on it. That convicted me, so I deeply studied each.
I feel very, very lonely now. I don't have a label to stick on myself.
I don't know if I'm a Calnvinist with Arminean tendencies or an Arminean with Calvinist tendencies.:confused:
I definitely lean toward being a Calvinist, but I think we are trying to proccess something with out human minds that is a spiritual mystery as far as the way it all works out.
I recall as we studied the book of Acts 13:48 where it said "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." You can dice and splice and parse to thy heart's content....it says what it means and means what it says.
Yet, ACT 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Looking past the sarcasam of his words, he's basically saying "If you don't want eternal life....fine!" Responding, of course, to their own decision to reject the gospel, a decision which they will be held accountable for. Also, ACT 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." They are resisting that....which is irresistible?:confused:
See what I mean? I'm Calvinist....with slight Armenian tendencies.:scratch: In other words, the human mind and heart come into play somehow in the equation...there will be a willingness from the human side.
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
If I am following where you are on this, these thoughts might be helpful:

It is not appropriate to say "I didn't make that decision" because you did. You didn't regenerate yourself (a popular Billy Graham way of stating the connection between choosing Jesus and being born again - i.e., regenerated - is to say that "You chose Christ, and then he caused you to be born again."), but you have willingly chosen Christ - something you were unable to do before God regenerated you.
Yes, it is important to understand that God only can initiate salvation. His created thing, mankind, cannot initiate it because it first takes a miracle which man cannot do.

At first, I thought the Calvinism documents claimed that God regenerated the elect as if the elect didn't have a choice to accept or reject. As I struggle with the definition of HyperCalvinist, It seems I'm back to square one.
In a sense, salvation requires man's choice. But, in context, God first changes man's nature, which God alone can do- God only can change the nature of a human being. A human being can "change" their mind, their will, their emotions and frequently does. But God alone can change the constituent nature of a human being. This is what Jesus is telling Nicodemus in John 3.

To be saved requires a changed nature. While the mind, the will and the emotions are affected, their change alone does not save someone. One could be of a mind to "accept" Jesus today, and change one's mind tomorrow.

Lots of people "think" they are Christians but reformed theology says the reality of the changed life tends to prove out over time in the life of believer (e.g. Parable of the Sower). The life is changed because the nature is changed and, over time, the life (thoughts, words and deeds) will more and more reflect the (true) nature of the person.

It's in that sense, Jesus springs of a tree bringing forth good fruit:

Matthew 7
33Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

The behavior (words) flow from the nature. Man's act cannot change that nature.

"Hyper Calvinism" is not Calvinism. The term is often used by people who do not understand Calvinism. If it has any basis as a definition, it is used to describe people who, misunderstanding Calvinism, think we are not to evangelize anyone because God will save who he wants, so we just let it be. This is not biblical, and not Calvinism at all.


With all the documents combined and over time, it seemed like I'm back to the Arminian theory that it's really you that makes a decision or do the action. As I can see in this topic of this forum, I'm getting clues that historical and traditional Arminianism might be outdated and Christianity involved to new things and new ideas.
Arminian influence says man is capable and able to inititiate his salvation- that's the crucial difference. Often, they say God's "grace" (unearned unmerited favor) is necessary, but then, inconsistently re-define grace to be something that can be accessed by man on demand. An analogy might be demanding a "gift" from someone. It's not a free, unmerited gift if there is an expectation or demand that one is entitled to it. Grace is not grace if one has a right or an expectation to demand and receive it.

Similar analogy from Dr. Sproul:

If there is one maverick molecule in the universe,
God is not sovereign,
If God is not sovereign,
God is not God.

If one can demand something unearned like salvation,
It's not a gift of salvation,
If salvation is not by gift,
salvation is not by grace.


"Behold, I stand at the door and Knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me." Revelations 3:20
One opens the door when he hears Jesus knocks. If Jesus knocks and the door don't open, then this wouldn't be possible since all calls respond. Is it possible that some don't respond to a knock? If so, then ~All~ would include the goats and tares. To me, the outdated Arminian imagines there's a knock and opens his own door and imagines Jesus standing there when they never heard the knock or saw Jesus and claim their own salvation. Some say,"I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist". Seems to me that they can imagine the knock and imagine Jesus entering until they understand the the knock/entering was real, ~later~. What theory does a non-Arminian/non-Calvinist follow, anyway?
When God first changes the nature, then faith and repentance automatically flow from the changed nature because that is an incident of the new nature.

While I'm not confident in the entire meaning in context of Revelation 3, remember it is right before 7 actual churches in Asia Minor and may have somewhat different application than is assumed.
 
Last edited:

Dao

Puritan Board Freshman
. . .I think what Todd was stressing was that while Calvinists still do chose Christ, we did it after God regenerated our hearts. The difference with arminians is they assert regeneration comes after the so called choice. It basically boils down to one's view of man. Totally depraved or not.
Seems we have to chose God after he regenerated our hearts. If we had to choose Him, we didn't have the choice not to choose him. Whatever God Wills, it happens. If God regenerates and His Will, guaranteedly comes in play. We're not able to reject Him. So we had to chose and there only one option to chose. It's like someone telling you to take your pick and you're looking at one and the only apple. How does one use the word "pick" in this case. I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has. It's more like get the apple or get your free gift. The Bible does say, "man has to chose" but I'm not sure the original language of the bible uses "chose" like we do today.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 07:30:40 EST-----

Yes, it is important to understand that God only can initiate salvation. His created thing, mankind, cannot initiate it because it first takes a miracle which man cannot do.
Is there a case in the Bible where God elects a man and that man turns down the offer?
 

ewenlin

Puritan Board Junior
. . .I think what Todd was stressing was that while Calvinists still do chose Christ, we did it after God regenerated our hearts. The difference with arminians is they assert regeneration comes after the so called choice. It basically boils down to one's view of man. Totally depraved or not.
Seems we have to chose God after he regenerated our hearts. If we had to choose Him, we didn't have the choice not to choose him. Whatever God Wills, it happens. If God regenerates and His Will, guaranteedly comes in play. We're not able to reject Him. So we had to chose and there only one option to chose. It's like someone telling you to take your pick and you're looking at one and the only apple. How does one use the word "pick" in this case. I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has. It's more like get the apple or get your free gift. The Bible does say, "man has to chose" but I'm not sure the original language of the bible uses "chose" like we do today.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 07:30:40 EST-----

Yes, it is important to understand that God only can initiate salvation. His created thing, mankind, cannot initiate it because it first takes a miracle which man cannot do.
Is there a case in the Bible where God elects a man and that man turns down the offer?
Nope. It's called irresistible grace. :)

Understanding our choices are made in accordance to our will. That is we always chose what we so desire at that given point. Prior to regeneration God is so far down our list of desires He's not even there you could say. It's at regeneration that Ezekiel 36 comes in, where our hearts of stone are turned in hearts of flesh. Following that we have the aptitude and the ability to chose God. Of course, that is because we have been born again and desire all things God!

In this sense, God doesn't force your decision by placing only 1 apple in front of you. He changes your heart so you will chose that apple.
 

Reformed Thomist

Puritan Board Sophomore
I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has.
Or could it be that the non-elect are the ones who are 'programmed' (to sin unto death), and the elect those who have been graciously freed from such slavery?
 

YXU

Puritan Board Freshman
Where do we draw the fine line in Arminianism and not call them "Cult"? We call JW, Mormons, Roman Catholics and many others "Cults" (at least those names are listed under cults in Google). To some, we can call Arminians cult in the same ways as others. Some would say Arminians are not cults. Doesn't those that teach a different doctrine fit in the catagory, "Cult"?
Arminianism is a heresy, it is an error and caused division, and it is a doctrine that we cannot tolerate even when we have to face divisions in the church, for it is crucial.

Roman Church and the Pope is also a herey and more than that, the Antichrist. Armianism is one of the doctrine of the Roman Church. Those who believe in Arminianism proves that they are the daughters of that great Whore.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
I recall as we studied the book of Acts 13:48 where it said "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." You can dice and splice and parse to thy heart's content....it says what it means and means what it says.
Yet, ACT 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Looking past the sarcasam of his words, he's basically saying "If you don't want eternal life....fine!" Responding, of course, to their own decision to reject the gospel, a decision which they will be held accountable for. Also, ACT 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." They are resisting that....which is irresistible?:confused:
See what I mean? I'm Calvinist....with slight Armenian tendencies.:scratch: In other words, the human mind and heart come into play somehow in the equation...there will be a willingness from the human side.
No, you are not a Calvinist if you assume a human element is involved in one's regeneration.

Judging by your comments with respect to Acts 7:51 and Acts 13:46 you seem to be struggling with the concept of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

AMR
 

A.J.

Puritan Board Junior
Thanks for posting that.
I have studied the Arminean vs. Calvinism theologies.
I once read somehere that unless you're an expert in the opposing view, you're not really qualified to pass judgment on it. That convicted me, so I deeply studied each.
I feel very, very lonely now. I don't have a label to stick on myself.
I don't know if I'm a Calnvinist with Arminean tendencies or an Arminean with Calvinist tendencies.:confused:
I definitely lean toward being a Calvinist, but I think we are trying to proccess something with out human minds that is a spiritual mystery as far as the way it all works out.
I recall as we studied the book of Acts 13:48 where it said "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." You can dice and splice and parse to thy heart's content....it says what it means and means what it says.
Yet, ACT 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Looking past the sarcasam of his words, he's basically saying "If you don't want eternal life....fine!" Responding, of course, to their own decision to reject the gospel, a decision which they will be held accountable for. Also, ACT 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." They are resisting that....which is irresistible?:confused:
See what I mean? I'm Calvinist....with slight Armenian tendencies.:scratch: In other words, the human mind and heart come into play somehow in the equation...there will be a willingness from the human side.
Ralph, I think you mean "Arminian" not "Armenian." Armenian is an ethnic group. :)

The doctrine of irresistible grace (effectual calling) does not mean that men do not resist the gospel at all. In fact, unbelievers always reject the gospel.

What it does mean is that in God's own time, His elect will be irresistibly (or effectually) drawn unto Himself. They will be made willing and able to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. Apart from God's prior work of grace in their hearts, they will never come to Christ for salvation.

As the Wesminster Confession states,

Chapter 9: Free Will

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;a so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,b and dead in sin,c is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.d

a. John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7. • b. Rom 3:10, 12. • c. Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13. • d. John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,a and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;b yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.c

a. John 8:34, 36; Col 1:13. • b. Rom 6:18, 22; Phil 2:13. • c. Rom 7:15, 18-19, 21, 23; Gal 5:17.
and

Chapter 10. Of Effectual Calling.

1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,a by his Word and Spirit,b out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;c enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God;d taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;e renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good,f and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;g yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.h

a. Rom 8:30; 11:7; Eph 1:10-11. • b. 2 Cor 3:3, 6; 2 Thes 2:13-14. • c. Rom 8:2; Eph 2:1-5; 2 Tim 1:9-10. • d. Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 2:10, 12; Eph 1:17-18. • e. Ezek 36:26. • f. Deut 30:6; Ezek 11:19; 36:27; Phil 2:13. • g. John 6:44-45; Eph 1:19. • h. Psa 110:3; Song 1:4; John 6:37; Rom 6:16-18.

2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man;a who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,b he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.c

a. Rom 9:11; Eph 2:4-5, 8-9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:4-5. • b. Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:5. • c. Ezek 36:27; John 5:25; 6:37.
-----Added 8/25/2009 at 12:52:53 EST-----

Yes, there is willingness involved. But this willingness by the elect to come to Christ is by God's free and special grace. Their willingness is not something produced by their unregenerated human nature.
 

Joseph Scibbe

Puritan Board Junior
Where do we draw the fine line in Arminianism and not call them "Cult"? We call JW, Mormons, Roman Catholics and many others "Cults" (at least those names are listed under cults in Google). To some, we can call Arminians cult in the same ways as others. Some would say Arminians are not cults. Doesn't those that teach a different doctrine fit in the catagory, "Cult"?
Arminianism is a heresy, it is an error and caused division, and it is a doctrine that we cannot tolerate even when we have to face divisions in the church, for it is crucial.

Roman Church and the Pope is also a herey and more than that, the Antichrist. Armianism is one of the doctrine of the Roman Church. Those who believe in Arminianism proves that they are the daughters of that great Whore.

Those are very heavy words for a matter like this. Do you consider those with a different eschatology than you heretics? Look at the groups listed under cults, they were JWs and LDS. Neither of those groups are Christian and yet they claim to be.RCC is a different issue but they are heretics in their own regard. I would be interested in knowing what you consider heresy and what is something simply to agree to disagree over.
 

A.J.

Puritan Board Junior
Those are very heavy words for a matter like this. Do you consider those with a different eschatology than you heretics? Look at the groups listed under cults, they were JWs and LDS. Neither of those groups are Christian and yet they claim to be.RCC is a different issue but they are heretics in their own regard. I would be interested in knowing what you consider heresy and what is something simply to agree to disagree over.
Hello! I don't think brother Xu is considering those who differ with him on eschatology as heretics. This board is proof that Reformed men can either be amillennial or postmillenial or historic premillennial (not to be confused with dispensational premillenialism) and yet be within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy.

The problem with Arminianism is that it belongs to totally different category altogether. As a system of theology, its errors go right at the heart of the gospel. While I will not describe Arminianism the way Xu did, I agree with him that Arminianism is a heresy.

The first sentences in the introductory paragraph of the Arminianism page of Dr. Matthew McMahon's website explain (note the first sentence),

The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy. It is an offshoot from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It has been adversely affecting the church and its doctrine for over 250 years. Men like Finney and Wesley, being the charismatic personalities they were, propagated the doctrine and resurrected the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ. Today's Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological "soup". Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians. If we were to live in the days of old, when the caliber of theology for Arminianism reached its zenith in its contentions with the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, we would find men very much deceived and propagating doctrines of a different nature than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today, each case for an "Arminian" church must be taken on its own accord since much of 21st Century Christendom really has no idea what they theologically believe.
Now back to the topic. :)
 

Joseph Scibbe

Puritan Board Junior
While I will not describe Arminianism the way Xu did, I agree with him that Arminianism is a heresy.
I disagree. Have they denied justification by grace alone through faith alone? Or the Trinity and it's other branching doctrines (hypostatic union) or the infalibility of Scripture? Or anything else foundational to the Gospel, I would say no.
 

Dao

Puritan Board Freshman
. . . We're not able to reject Him. So we had to chose and there only one option to chose. It's like someone telling you to take your pick and you're looking at one and the only apple. How does one use the word "pick" in this case. I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has. It's more like get the apple or get your free gift. The Bible does say, "man has to chose" but I'm not sure the original language of the bible uses "chose" like we do today
Just came to my mind, I don't recall seeing any verse that says we "chose". I have never been able to find it.
 

Gloria

Puritan Board Sophomore
Where do we draw the fine line in Arminianism and not call them "Cult"? We call JW, Mormons, Roman Catholics and many others "Cults" (at least those names are listed under cults in Google). To some, we can call Arminians cult in the same ways as others. Some would say Arminians are not cults. Doesn't those that teach a different doctrine fit in the catagory, "Cult"?
No...
 

Igor

Puritan Board Freshman
Arminianism is a heresy, it is an error and caused division, and it is a doctrine that we cannot tolerate even when we have to face divisions in the church, for it is crucial.

Roman Church and the Pope is also a herey and more than that, the Antichrist. Armianism is one of the doctrine of the Roman Church. Those who believe in Arminianism proves that they are the daughters of that great Whore.
Are you sure? 98 per cent of all Russian and Ukrainian Baptists (except those whose congregations were set up and influenced by Calvinistic missionaries) are Arminians - do you mean to say that they are all "daughters of that great Whore"? So, when they suffered for Christ during the Communist (and, earlier, Orthodox) persecutions, they suffered in vain?
 
Last edited:

Dao

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, there is willingness involved. But this willingness by the elect to come to Christ is by God's free and special grace. Their willingness is not something produced by their unregenerated human nature.
Then why can't we face that we were "forced" to come to Him? There wasn't any other option but to surrender but surrender is still a choice so "took" is a better word, right? "God took us"
 

A.J.

Puritan Board Junior
I disagree. Have they denied justification by grace alone through faith alone? Or the Trinity and it's other branching doctrines (hypostatic union) or the infalibility of Scripture? Or anything else foundational to the Gospel, I would say no.
In your view, what makes heresy heresy? Historic Arminianism is heresy. See the Canons of Dort and note the many times the word Pelagian appears in the Reformed description of the five Arminian articles. Historic Christianinity has held that Pelagianism is heresy.

Thankfully, many men and women who claim to be Arminians in our day are actually inconsistent Arminians. I think we are simply disagreeing on how to define terms.

Are you sure? 98 per cent of all Russian and Ukrainian Baptists (except those whose congregations were set up and influenced by Calvinistic missionaries) are Arminians - do you mean to say that they are all "daughters of that great Whore"? So, when they suffered for Christ during the Communist (and, earlier, Orthodox) persecutions, they suffered in vain?
With the exception of the former Soviet Union and China's Communist history, most professing non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox Christians in most (if not all) countries are also Arminians. That would include India where many professing Christians are being persecuted to this day.

I believe that some of God's elect are within Arminian circles. They are true Christians in spite of their bad theology. They are inconsistent Arminians. They may claim to be Arminian but if they truly repent of their sins and trust Christ alone for their salvation, then their death in the hands of an evil government is certainly not in vain. As Scripture says,

Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.

-----Added 8/26/2009 at 10:11:14 EST-----

Then why can't we face that we were "forced" to come to Him? There wasn't any other option but to surrender but surrender is still a choice so "took" is a better word, right? "God took us"
"Force" I think is not a good word to describe the effectual calling of God's elect. God makes them willing and able to rest on and receive Christ alone for their salvation (cf. WCF Chapters 9 and 10). This was described by the prophet Ezekiel,

Ezekiel 36:25-27 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

The Canons of Dort (3rd and 4th Heads of Doctrine) explain,

Article 11

But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in his elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit,1 that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God;2 but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man;3 He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart,4 and circumcises that which was uncircumcised;5 infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens;6 from being evil, disobedient, and obstinate, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.7
1 Heb 6:4-5; 2 1 Cor 2:10-14; 3 Heb 4:12; 4 Acts 16:14; 5 Dt 30:6; 6 Ezek 11:19, 36:26; 7 Mt 7:18; Gal 5:22-25

Article 12

And this is that regeneration so highly extolled in Scripture, that renewal,1 new creation,2 resurrection from the dead,3 making alive,4 which God works in us without our aid.5 But this is in no way effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe.6 Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received.
1 Jn 3:3; 2 2 Cor 4:6, 5:17; 3 Jn 5:25; Rom 4:17; Eph 5:14; 4 Eph 2:5; 5 Php 2:13; 6 Jn 6:63-65
Yes, the Lord "took" us and delivered us from our state of sin and misery.
 
Last edited:

Dao

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, there is willingness involved. But this willingness by the elect to come to Christ is by God's free and special grace. Their willingness is not something produced by their unregenerated human nature.
Then why can't we face that we were "forced" to come to Him? There wasn't any other option but to surrender but surrender is still a choice so "took" is a better word, right? "God took us"
Well that beats me. It's like in the Star Trek movie when a bigger ship beams in the little ship by force or the bigger fish eats the little fish by force.
When God guarantees our salvation by promise, He'll get us, He'll take us, It's still by force the way I see it. Maybe it don't sound to good but that seems what is happening. Everyone wants free will and the Arminians are getting their free will and it seems God allows them to feel free or forces Arminians to feel like they're not controlled. As I see, God ~IS~ in control and that includes taking the Elects as He see fits. I don't know if this sounds hyper but It seems simple. I want to know is how are we supposed to understand that and say we do have a choice to receive or reject Him. If we can't reject him, then how can we say we have a choice as if would could reject Him. Well. I'm going to have to pray on this one.
 

Dao

Puritan Board Freshman
There's probably a difference between calling someone a heretic and labeling them anathema.
Thats a new word for me!:

Anathema (in Greek Ανάθεμα) originally meant something lifted up as an offering to the gods; later, with evolving meanings, it came to mean:

1. to be formally set apart;
2. banished, exiled, excommunicated;
3. denounced, sometimes accursed; or
4. a literary term
Anathema - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top