Hold on here. You are speaking in redundancies. ‘in spite of their conscience telling them what is good or bad’? What good is a conscience if it cannot move them to repentance? Why do they choose to do what is evil, and can they choose NOT to do evil? Can they not choose to do good? Why not? If it is God who must get them to the place before they can choose to do good, then God is responsible for allowing them to revel in evil. If they have no choice, their damnation is really not their fault. Adam and God must take responsibility for it. How can they be blamed for not listening to their conscience when they are not drawn by God to be regenerated?
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. (Romans 1:21-26)
Not only is it our nature to do these things, God gave us over to them. He is fair and just to do so, since it is us who rebelled (in Adam).
What rebellion? Rebellion by who we are? If that is the case my point still stands. If people are inherently evil it is not their fault, it’s Adam’s. Some people are good people morally but just don’t believe in God. God is the author of all that is good including our moral consciences. God makes us in His image, imparts the concept of right or wrong to the worst sinner, but then says they are not the ones He will regenerate? They apparently never get that chance to have their inherent evil overcome as God refuses to move them to repentance.
As it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10-18)
guibox - 29 March 2010 04:14 AM
If someone is not going to be saved because they hate God and refuse to allow Him in their lives, well, God can leave them to their own devices. They had their chance but chose to remain rebellious. To have them be rebellious by nature, not give them the chance to choose God, and then still hold them accountable for rebellious acts of sin due to a nature they had no option or chance to overcome?
They have the same chance that we all have apart from God’s effectual grace: none.
”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” (John 6:44)
“But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:64-65)
Not really. Sin’s by commission are only a result of Adam’s sin by imputation. If they are not fully responsible for Adam’s sin but must bear it’s load and consequences, and cannot repent or ‘do good’ if they are not called and regenerated, then outward sins of disobedience are merely a reflection of the state they have inherited. If they cannot have the choice of doing good, then ultimately, they cannot really be fairly held accountable. It’s like punishing a leopard for having spots and a schizophrenic for hearing voices.
This is a nice theory Guibox. Now, if only God’s Word backed your theory up…
What you’re espousing here is basically a Pelagian view of the nature of man. Nothing new under the sun. True Arminians, by the way, don’t deny the doctrine of original sin inherited from Adam. Adventists, some of whom claim to be Arminian but are not, deny this doctrine. Under your definition of what is fair, true Arminians are just as bad off as Calvinists.
It is one thing to state a priori what you think is fair or not fair. It is quite another to prove that God thinks the same way you do.
Nate
My post has nothing to do with denying original sin. And not all SDAs reject this notion. This has to do with us INHERITING Adam’s sin. When you inherit something, you didn’t do anything to warrant it. It just came to you. As Adam’s sin passed onto the human race without warrant, so Christ’s death imputed righteousness onto us without any warranting on our part. This is the message of Romans 5.
My point is that it makes no sense for God to not allow all of us to be cleansed from Adam’s sin, which we all got by default and further experience inner corruption of our nature, and then which caused us to outwardly sin, but then hold us accountable for it anyway. At least Arminianism gives all of mankind a way out of the sin problem. It is their choice to claim it or reject it.
Perhaps this may be a faulty analogy but it’s like my children getting hooked on heroin by an outside source without their knowledge, me offering one of them counseling and then berating and punishing the other kid for having a drug problem. It’s not enough that I’m seemingly content with my son having a drug problem, oh no, I must also give him more misery and punish him for it because he CHOOSES to use drugs (as I ignore that addiction is the root problem) and not giving him any help to overcome it! I’m punishing him because he is an addict.
My post has nothing to do with denying original sin. And not all SDAs reject this notion. This has to do with us INHERITING Adam’s sin. When you inherit something, you didn’t do anything to warrant it. It just came to you. As Adam’s sin passed onto the human race without warrant, so Christ’s death imputed righteousness onto us without any warranting on our part. This is the message of Romans 5.
My point is that it makes no sense for God to not allow all of us to be cleansed from Adam’s sin, which we all got by default and further experience inner corruption of our nature, and then which caused us to outwardly sin, but then hold us accountable for it anyway. At least Arminianism gives all of mankind a way out of the sin problem. It is their choice to claim it or reject it.
And my original point still stands, i.e. it is one thing to state what one thinks is fair or not and what one thinks makes sense or not, and something else altogether to prove that the Word of God teaches it.
Nate
P.S. If you accept imputed guilt from Adam and imputed righteousness from Christ, you should know that you disagree with your church on both points. The first Adventists to accept and teach these doctrines were Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford, and you know what happened to both of them.
Here is the other post from Challies that Dan mentioned in the OP.
A young Minister, about three or four years after he was ordained, had an opportunity of conversing familiarly with the great and venerable leader of the Arminians in this kingdom; and, wishing to improve the occasion to the uttermost, he addressed him nearly in the following words: “Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions, not from impertinent curiosity, but for real instruction.” Permission being very readily and kindly granted, the young Minister proceeded to ask, “Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved, that you would never have thought of turning unto God, if God had not first put [it] into your heart?"--"Yes," says the veteran, “I do indeed."--"And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by any thing that you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?"--"Yes, solely through Christ."--"But, Sir, supposing you were first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?"--"No; I must be saved by Christ from first to last."--"Allowing then that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?"--"No."--"What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?"--"Yes; altogether."--"And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto his heavenly kingdom?"--"Yes; I have no hope, but in him."--"Then, Sir, with your leave, I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is, in substance, all that I hold, and as I hold it: and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.” The Arminian leader was so pleased with the conversation, that he made particular mention of it in his journals; notwithstanding there never afterwards was any connexion between the parties, he retained an unfeigned regard for his young inquirer to the hour of his death. (Charles Simeon, Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus Preface, pp. xvii-xviii)”
If I may, I’m repeating your quotation of the Simeon -v- Wesley exchange here with, 1) dialog markers for readability, and 2) emphasis added (mine) for the sole purpose of obfuscation. .
A young Minister, about three or four years after he was ordained, had an opportunity of conversing familiarly with the great and venerable leader of the Arminians in this kingdom; and, wishing to improve the occasion to the uttermost, he addressed him nearly in the following words:
Simeon: Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions, not from impertinent curiosity, but for real instruction.
-- Permission being very readily and kindly granted, the young Minister proceeded to ask,
Simeon: Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved, that you would never have thought of turning unto God, if God had not first put [it] into your heart?”
Wesley: “Yes,” says the veteran, I do indeed.”
Simeon: “And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by any thing that you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?”
Wesley: “Yes, solely through Christ.”
Simeon: “But, Sir, supposing you were first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?”
Wesley: ”No; I must be saved by Christ from first to last.”
Simeon: “Allowing then that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?”
Wesley: “No.”
Simeon: “What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mothers arms?”
Wesley: “Yes; altogether.”
Simeon: “And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto his heavenly kingdom?”
Wesley: “Yes; I have no hope, but in him.”
Simeon: “Then, Sir, with your leave, I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is, in substance, all that I hold, and as I hold it: and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.
Conclusion: The Arminian leader was so pleased with the conversation, that he made particular mention of it in his journals; notwithstanding there never afterwards was any connexion between the parties, he retained an unfeigned regard for his young inquirer to the hour of his death. (Charles Simeon, Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus Preface, pp. xvii-xviii)
What is amazing to me is Charles Wesley’s full grasp and ardent confession of the biblical doctrine of grace! And yet his teachings and church leadership did not reflect this belief at all!
What is amazing to me is Charles Wesley’s full grasp and ardent confession of the biblical doctrine of grace! And yet his teachings and church leadership did not reflect this belief at all!
No, no, Wesley is consistent in this exchange, the other guy is doing a poor job in describing Calvinism.
Dan, Nate, take a second and profound look at the exchange and try to identify the weak parts. I’m giving you just two clues:
1. Arminianism is NOT semi-pelagianism
2. “Prevenient grace”
Nate,
If I may, I’m repeating your quotation of the Simeon -v- Wesley exchange here with, 1) dialog markers for readability, and 2) emphasis added (mine) for the sole purpose of obfuscation. .
Thanks Dan. I agree, it was harder to read all mashed together.
No, no, Wesley is consistent in this exchange, the other guy is doing a poor job in describing Calvinism.
Dan, Nate, take a second and profound look at the exchange and try to identify the weak parts. I’m giving you just two clues:
1. Arminianism is NOT semi-pelagianism
2. “Prevenient grace”
Gabriel
I do see what you mean Gabriel. The classic Arminian position is that man is totally depraved, unable to respond to God. Yet, they say, God gives “prevenient grace” to all men without distinction. This puts the ball back in the sinner’s court, where his personal decision makes the ultimate difference in his salvation. God then rewards this decision with regeneration and gives the sinner grace to persevere. This is the point where I think Wesley might be deviating from his own confession, although not from the teachings of Arminius himself, who leaned toward the belief that God would “seal” man’s decision with guaranteed perseverance. I’m pretty sure Wesley believed that man could then choose to not be saved, which ultimately puts man’s perseverance under his own power. Of course no one would affirm this when pressed on the issue. I do think that Simeon is being overly simplistic in describing his Calvinism in order to find common ground, but then again that was his point.
I sincerely appreciate your watchful eye in all of this. If I’m following you (and Nate) correctly, it’s not so much what’s said in the Wesley/Simeon exchange; it’s what is NOT said that is critical here. Even though the concept of election is clearly addressed in Simeon’s final statement; what was missed was the issue of how God’s graceful election is utterly irresistible, it cannot fail, and it completely takes our efforts out of the perseverance equation.
We can’t discern Simeon’s standing on this issue from this exchange alone. Perhaps it was omitted merely for the economy of the exchange? Without further study of Simeon’s writings I’ll never know.
Again, thank you for highlighting this deficiency in my understanding. And please, if there’s anything else I’m missing, do bring it to light!
Dan, don’t worry to much. I’m not here to correct you. You figured out for yourself without my help what doesn’t fit, only because of less time to ponder the things.
Both you and Nate proved to have an accurate view of Arminianism, and I’m trusting your judgment and respect it. After living a lot of my life in confusion, I welcome any opportunity in gaining clarity, no matter through whom it comes.
I wasn’t worried, just appreciative… Regarding the apt correction, edification, and support of our brothers and sisters in Christ; there’s a common saying around the church about how iron sharpens iron. Your corrective nudges are always done with great humility and care. For that I am very grateful…
.
I agree, it was harder to read all mashed together.