Arminians' Dilemma
- Thread starter Samie
- Start date
As I just stated in the last post, I had hardly be blamed for mistaking you for a Calvinist when you make the exact same argument that nearly every Calvinist in the world has made since John Calvin himself!
I already refuted it in post 70.
And the line "You call it stupidity, because you are not able to refute it." is the clarion call of mindless followers who make (parrot) stupid arguments. It isn't wrong to call something stupid so long as it is in fact stupid. The line of reasoning you presented in the OP is so flimsy it doesn't deserve anything other than to be ridiculed. It's flatly moronic. You simply must NOT allow such childish, superficial thinking to persuade you on things as important as theology. Use that sort of crap when deciding which car to buy or what color to paint your front door. Matters of a theological nature require disciplined reason, which requires actual effort and skill.
Think for yourself and stop listening to people who you think know something that you don't and are somehow smarter than you are. They aren't! People who teach the sort of silliness that your OP presents didn't come up with it any more than you did. The only reason they teach it is because they were taught it by someone else who was taught it too. It's the proverbial blind leading the blind. Open your eyes and see. It isn't complicated and it doesn't require being an expert in Greek or Hebrew. All it takes is a little common sense and a strict adherence to sound reason.
Incidentally, if you're not a Calvinist and you're not an Arminian, what are you? Those of us who are neither are few and far between. We may have more in common than either of us suspects at the moment.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You've gotta stop! Now, you're building whole convoluted doctrines in order to solve dilemmas that do not exist in the first place!
You've gone all the way to believing in some sort of weird inverted universalism teaching just so you can solve a dilemma that only exists if you use texts of scripture as pretexts rather than using proper exegetical principles such as pneumonia (or whatever his name is) has presented and long established and rationally sound hermeneutics.
The solution is right in the OP of this thread! "Nothing" does NOT mean "nothing at all whatsoever". That's not what it means in almost every context in which the word is ever used even to the present day! It's called hyperbole and its an extremely common way in which language is used. All you have to do is think it through for about 20 seconds. Why would Jesus tell people to repent if it weren't possible for them to do so unless He did it for them in some mystical manner in which they neither chose to repent nor could have refused to do so? It's STUPIDITY! It's just exactly as if you took this single sentence that Jesus spoke and built a whole doctrine around it while ignoring, not just the immediate context in which the sentence was uttered, but the entirety of the bible and the whole history of mankind's relationship with God!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: Just scapegoating, Clete. In particular, you should be smarter than this. The Pharisees get a lot of flak for every stupid-little-thing especially by cultists trying to substantiate their illogical existence against the rest of Christendom.
On top of that, Calvinists believe in a Limited Atonement. We often are accused of reading 'whole world' exactly against your assertion, no?
This sentence made no sense to me.
I'm not scapegoating, I simply assumed that he was a Calvinist based on TWO pieces of pretty good evidence; 1. He started an anti-Arminian thread and 2. He made the exact same argument that thousands of Calvinist have made in the past. It was not an unreasonable assumption to make and every single point I made is not even altered, never mind undermined, by the fact that I addressed the argument against Calvinists. Indeed, I have no direct evidence yet that he is not a Calvinist but the point is that it doesn't matter, his argument is flat faced stupidity whether he's a Calvinist or not.
Precisely! Words like "All", "Every", "Always", "Never", "Nothing", etc are called 'Universal Qualifiers". The problem with using them in language is that people do not speak the way computers do and it is an error to interpret their use as though the speaker is talking about predicate calculus rather than speaking like a normal person, using generalities without the need to specify that he is doing so. It takes simple common sense and an outright refusal to proof-text your way through theology to remain on the same page that the biblical author is on.
Resting in Him,
Clete
He - pneumonia (or whatever his name is) - simply presented his inventions and did not present any single verse backing up his anarthrous invention. He simply resorted to it because he has nowhere to hide in Scriptures.
You are telling me that NOTHING means SOMETHING? Are you serious?
That's precisely what the OP is pointing out. Jesus was asking the people to repent because they are capable of repenting, being NOT separate from Him.
And repenting is overcoming evil with good.
Correct, it is STUPIDITY to tell people to do SOMETHING when they are not able to. And that's what Arminians basically do. How so?
Scriptures say that Christ is our Life (Col 3:4). Hence, separate from Christ Who is our Life, man is dead, spiritually dead. Arminians know that those In Christ are spiritually alive. They consider the non-believers as being NOT in Christ, and therefore spiritually dead.
By requiring non-believers to first believe for them to be In Christ, the Arminians are in effect telling whom they know are dead to believe. And from your mouth, that's STUPIDITY.
In John 15, Jesus was speaking to His disciples. His disciples are In Him, In Christ, hence spiritually alive. Now, they tell them, that they can do NOTHING when separate from Him. But you tell me that NOTHING means SOMETHING, so in effect you are saying that apart from Christ, the disciples can do SOMETHING. In summary:
Christ: "Apart from me, you can do NOTHING."
Clete: "Apart from Christ, you can do SOMETHING."
Which is STUPIDITY: to believe in what Christ said, or to believe in what Clete said?
The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.
Did you deliberately close your eyes to the Calvinists' Dilemma thread I started on the same day this thread was started? Can you tell me honestly you were not really aware about that thread?
Lon
Well-known member
Nutshell: Cults mindless scapegoat. You generally don't. It was a compliment toward your brain, a bit of chiding for not using it. I retract it given your further statements below.
Granted then, but I think it a weird position if you seen it from Calvinists. Generally all of us read John 3:16 as world, but not 'whole' world, for instance, so we recognize where Jews employ a phrase that we have to take differently, at times.
We do try to take what is given as literally as scripture allows, however. It also necessarily has to be supported in other (and hopefully plainer) texts among other examples of checks and balances to our respective theologies and exegesis.
So, while I don't think this an instance of Calvinist doctrine, I concede you may indeed have heard it from Calvinists, but I'd suggest they are inconsistent in their own Calvinism (and with mine). Thanks for setting me straight. Moving forward, Samie is not a Calvinist. He started a thread with the same name substituting "Calvinism" for Arminian prior to this one.
It is probably worth mentioning to Samie that you aren't an Arminian, either, just arguing against his point (may be unnecessary).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I've encounered many people through the years claiming to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and I have yet to be able to recognize even one of them that is not Arminian or some degree of Pelagian.
Most take some contorted contextual minutiae, like Samie here, and pretend to oppose both "sides" from some false foundation of not understanding basic translational grammar and semantics issues (like Samie has done).
It's been my nearly-20-year goal to reconcile all false binaries of doctrine in every area, while staying within the boundaries of orthodoxy. I have indeed reconciled the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism, but not by dismissing them both for some third nebulous alternative that does not exist.
The only answer is to demonstrate which facets of the singular central objective and knowable truth are represented best by Monergism and Synergism. There is no third option.
The truth lies in recognizing the distinction between the uncreated timelessness of God and the created chronological form of time for the fallen earth ages of the cosmos.
For God, there is no "before"; just as there is no "after". But for everything and everyone in time, all factors of the chronological form of time in the cosmos are the boundaries, just like space and matter as material substance (versus immaterial substance, which is either uncreated [God as Spirit and His Logos] or created [all else in the heavenly realm that is not physical in the tangible earthly sense, like angels, etc.]).
Eternity is God's timelessness, and is distinct from aeviternity (everlasting) in the created realms (which includes heaven). The timeless God interfaces with all forms of time in a superordinant manner; all forms of time being subordinate to Him. God is both "no-when" and "every-when", just as He is "no-where" and "every-where". God is not subject to creation, so sequential and spatial material and non-material creation do not contain or constrain Him in any parameter of existence and functionality.
Time and space are not things that God is subject to. His existence is both transendant to, and immanent within, all created parameters of existence; but He is not subject to time or space while permeating all of creation. This is also the distinction between God's uncreated presence in creation when contrasted with the fallacies of pantheism and panentheism.
There is no sequence of whens and/or wheres for God. God is uncreated Self-conscious Self-existence "before" He created; but there is no "before" for God. There is "before" for creation, including time; but there is no "before" for God. That's why there is no "eternity past". God alone is eternal, and eternity is one of His incommunicable attributes. But time had a beginning. An inception. So there is only aeviternity (everlasting/ness) going forward from that initial creation of time; hence, no "eternity past".
When we are hypostatically translated into Christ by faith, our inner man is seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is the means of us communing from time into timelessness, and partaking of the divine nature. This fellowship of communion from time into timelessness is God's foreknowledge OF us, and His predestination for us to be conformed to the image of His Son.
Salvation is a means of resurrecting us into Christ during physical life to know God by the revelation of Jesus Christ, having been translated into Him by faith. From this position in Christ, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind and our restored spiritual life of constant communion with God is our gift of partaking into timelessness from time.
God knew "before" creation all those who would believe and recieve, but there is no "before" for God. His foreknowledge is our current communion with Him as we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
There IS synergism, but it's all monergistic; because the only eternal and uncreated uncaused cause is the one true and living God. Synergism can only occur relative to time. Monergism is the timeless mind and will of God accomplising what He knows and chooses. The only "before" is for us, and it's for us to remember the joy of salvation and communion into life by resurrection for all everlasting.
In John 15:5, Jesus was telling His disciples, who of course are In Him, In Christ, that they can do NOTHING apart from Him. I believe Him. You don't. Instead, you want me to believe that Jesus' NOTHING really means SOMETHING. Summarizing,
Christ: "Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING."
PneumaPsucheSoma: "Apart from Christ, you can do SOMETHING".
Just like the Arminians, you consider non-believers as NOT In Christ, and therefore spiritually dead, being apart or separate from Christ Who is our Life (Col 3:4). Yet, you tell the non-believers to first believe so they can be "translated into Him by faith" and thus "resurrect[ed] into Christ during physical life". That really amazes me, because despite your theological jargons and knowing that they are dead (not yet "resurrect[ed] into Christ") and can do NOTHING, you tell them to believe.
Clete calls that STUPIDITY.
The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. Your false binary actually indicates you are clueless and aligned much too closely with Barth and Univeral Atonement (which is but a breath away from Universal Reconciliation).
Aletheiophile
New member
Um...you do realize He was addressing the Disciples (minus Judas)? He was addressing a very specific audience, those whom had already believed unto Him, and most assuredly would believe unto Him.
Taking a specific address outside of the original context and audience is a big hermeneutical mistake. The general application can only be understood after the specific is addressed.
This whole section of John is Christ preaching the Gospel to His disciples, and revealing the mystery of God.
PPS is not saying that man can do anything outside of Christ at all. The source for hearing/repenting/believing is God. Man is not the agent, only the recipient. Thus, He is doing nothing. Being the passive recipient is not doing anything at all. So of course man can do nothing apart from Him, because He is the source of all things good, including salvation.
Yes, I can tell you exactly that. I hadn't the slightest idea that any such thread existed, never mind that it was started by you.
Judas was there.
I agree. And He was telling His disciples that apart from Him, they can do NOTHING. And I believe Him. What I can't believe is PPS' telling me that Christ's NOTHING really means SOMETHING.
You may not have noticed it, but he did; in his last post.
Yes, God is the source of Faith. But the exercise of this faith is man's act. Faith is what energizes man to believe. And PPS wants me to believe that non-believers can do the spiritual act of believing while apart from Christ.
IF and only if PPS is right, then, Christ is wrong. But because Christ can NOT be wrong, then PPS is wrong.
The Arminians' Dilemma remains unresolved.
That's fine with me.
Honestly, I am not at all concerned being called Calvinist or whatever. I am just saying I am not a Calvinist. If people don't believe it, then, I respect their not believing I am not a Calvinist. Their non-belief in me saying I am NOT a Calvinist does not make me a Calvinist.
Neither am I an Arminian.
So what am I? I am just a simple believer in what Jesus said, and that includes what He told His disciples that apart from Him they can do NOTHING.
Please don't go from parroting stupidity to being stupid!
We could potential have a substantive discussion here but I will not throw pearls before pigs. If you cannot think and respond rationally I'll simply ignore you.
Even by you own convoluted interpretation of the passage in question, the logic just doesn't work!
John 15:4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
You claim that you can nothing at all whatsoever, including repent, unless you are in Jesus.
What's there to repent of if you're already in Christ?
No, to repent, strictly speaking, means to change your mind. But in the sense we are using the term it means to be sorry or regretful.
The Hebrew word is Nacham (Strong's 5162)
See Gen 6:6; Exo. 32:12; Num.23:19; Jer. 18:8-10; etc
Arminians say no such thing. It's only in your pseudo-universalist world of weird English interpretation where generalities aren't allowed that any such teaching is detected.
"Our" is referring to believers, numb-skull!
More Calvinism!
Actually, this is Augustinian thinking but its the same thing, applied in the same way. It's straight up stupidity. Or at least the way you are applying it is.
Spiritual death is not spiritual non-existence, its simply separation from God. That's all any sort of death is, a separation. Physical death is the separation of your soul/spirit from your physical body. Spiritual death is the separation of your soul/spirit from God. Jesus experienced both on the cross and remained dead for three days and was yet able, after having laid down His own life, to take it up again (John 10:18). If being dead means you can't do anything at all whatsoever, how do explain John 10:18?
You're just a box full of misconceptions and confusion. You've (actually, it wasn't you but whomever it was that taught you this silliness) constructed a whole theological paradigm designed to solve problems that don't actually exist.
Being identified "in Christ" was not possible prior to the Dispensation of Grace, which began with Saul's conversion in Acts 9. Jesus was talking to His disciples, yes, but they were not "in Him". They were Jews, saved under the Dispensation of Law and remained under that dispensation until their physical deaths. (I Corinthians 7:17-24).
Put whatever words in my mouth that make you feel good about being an idiot.
OR
You can respond with some rationality.
It's your choice but if you want to continue this conversation with me you are required to choose the later immediately.
Resting in Him,
Clete
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You have no clue what I've said. You're a Universal Atonement proponent, and thus a heretic. It's that simple.
You could understand anarthrous Greek nouns if you weren't so hell-bent on just being right in your own mind.
"All" as an anarthrous noun doesn't mean "all" as an articular noun. You aren't searching for truth, just to preserve your own false understanding. In a sense, you're neither right nor wrong. You're just on a tangent that doesn't even deal with the issue.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
For the faith that cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God... Both faith and hearing are NOUNS. Faith, in this instance, is NOT a VERB for action at all, and neither is hearing. Faith is the thing believed, and it comes out of the thing heard, which comes by means of the thing thought and spoken about by God.
Man takes no initiative action whatsoever. None of these are verbs. And repentance is granted.
You're a Synergist. An Arminian, if not a Semi-Pelagian.
Man cannot effect his own salvation. Even his cooperation in action is response to all God is and does.
You have a dilemna in taking issue with Arminians when you ARE ONE (or worse, a Pelagian of some degree; if there's even a difference beyond playing word games).
Last edited:
Epoisses
New member
And you're a Calvinistic monergist who believes that God ordained sin. It all goes back to God so he ordained sin, suffering and death. He ordained murder. He ordained adultery. He ordained rape. He ordained genocide. I could go on and on if the human has no input then life is just a show and theater and the judgment where we stand condemned before God I could say 'hey God you made me this way, what's your problem?'. I can at least deal with a Lutheran monergist but never a Calvinistic one.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It is doubtful you know of what you speak in the matters of Divine Ordination . . .
God is not the author of sin. James 1:13-15
The wages of sin is placed upon mankind (
Romans 6:23); not God.
Only created men die . . . because of their sinful acts.
God never dies because God has no part of sin.
Duh . . .