- Semi-Pelagianism: God does and thus obviously can save people without faith.
- Arminianism: God typically does not save people without faith but can and sometimes does, e.g., the death of infants and those who have not reached the "age of discretion".
Ahh, okay. So you agree, then, that in Arminianism, God is able to save people without faith, because He is able to (and has the power to) save whomever He wishes? That if He does not save someone, in that system, it is due to His sovereign will and not to a lack of power or ability?
Arminianism teaches that God provides "prevenient grace", which provides man with the ability to either choose God or reject God with his now unfettered free-will.
I would agree with this if only you were to take “unfettered free-will” out of the equation.
Arminianism teaches that God is powerful enough to provide a type of grace which supernaturally provides man with the ability to either choose God or reject God, though he is enslaved to sin.
Consequently, those who choose to seek after God and believe upon Christ are THEN given a new nature.
I would agree with this, if you would change “choose to seek after” to “stop resisting.”
No one seeks after God, in Arminianism. Rather, salvation comes to those who stop resisting God's grace, stop suppressing the truth, and stop kicking against the goads. (It's passive, not active).
In the Arminian system God does not sovereignly save by His eternal decree without consideration of what man does; exercise his free-will.
Still following...
Thus, God is NOT "all powerful" at all, for he CANNOT save unless and until a sinner takes advantage of the general prevenient grace and makes a free-will choice.
That is a non-sequitar. You said that in Arminianism God makes man able to believe (I agree), that who who ceases to resist God's grace is regenerated (I agree), and that God chooses intentionally not to save without considering whether man has met His condition that He set (I agree).
Thus far, we agree about what Arminianism teaches, but then out of nowhere, you suggest that these three facts imply that God A – is not all powerful and B – cannot save a man that does not meet His condition that He set.
To me, that is like saying: Today is Saturday, and the sky blue, therefore 3 and 3 makes 12. It's a complete non-sequitar. I don't even see how you think such a leap makes any sense.
According to Arminianism:
1 – God has the power to save anyone
2 – God does not choose to save everyone
3 – According to His good pleasure and sovereign choice, He chooses only to save those who meet His condition
According to you:
4 – Therefore, (it would follow from their logic) God does not have the power to save anyone, for He has not the power to save those who do not meet His condition
But your 4th premise would deny the first premise. It would not logically follow AT ALL.
The Synod of Dordt understood these differences and thus judged Arminianism as damnable heresy
This is an interesting approach. Do you believe that all Arminians are unregenerate people who will be damned, even through they believe on Christ as Lord and Savior? That they are not even brothers and sisters in Christ?
Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with your understanding of Arminianism in regard to their definition of foreknowledge and its relationship to God's decrees of predestination and election. In the Arminian system, foreknowledge is bare prescience; knowledge of facts
Now, what I had said was this: In the Arminian system,
He does not elect because He foresees.
He elects, with foreknowledge, because He wants to save those stop resisting His grace.
You respond here that their idea of foreknowledge is just knowledge. I did not disagree with this. What I said is that it is not knowledge (foreknowledge) which is said to motivate, cause, or determine God's choice.
God's will is said to determine His choice, and He uses His knowledge/foreknowledge in electing specific people. (According to one of the two main branches of Arminianism – for one branch holds to “corporate election,” whereas I am here referring to the Arminian branch that holds to individual election).
Therefore, when you say that you disagree about Arminianism, and then tell me something that I agree with (about foreknowledge being seen as knowledge of facts), I do not understand how you disagree.
Do you disagree that in the Arminian system, motive and not knowledge/foreknowledge is seen as the cause/determinant of God's choice?
And, the source of that knowledge is contradictory to the biblical doctrine of Omniscience, for God must 'see' what man will allegedly do BEFORE He issues the decree.
I think you mean that it is contrary to the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible in regard to the doctrine of Omniscience.
“Further it is self-contradictory and self-defeating, for if God "foresees" that Joe Smith will believe on Tuesday, December 5th at 11:00 a.m. and therefore decrees to elect Joe Smith unto salvation, then Joe Smith MUST be infallibly saved on that date and time. There is no room for Joe Smith exercising his free-will and potentially reject the Gospel.[/quote]
Then you misunderstand Arminian free will. In the Arminian system, free will means self-determined choices. In the scenario given above, Joe is the determinant of his choice to stop resisting the grace of God. God, of course, knows when and how this choice will be made from all eternity past, and chooses that He good pleasure is to save this Joe person who will stop resisting grace in the future. He then, logically following Joe's determination to stop resisting, elects Joe to justified and conformed to the image of Christ.
It is certain that Joe will believe, of course – for Joe Smith MUST be infallibly saved on that date and time. But what makes that certain? What determined that that would happen, rather than rejection at that time? Joe was the determinant.
You can know something without determining it. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Joe determining to stop resisting, and God knowing with certainty that Joe certainly chooses to stop resisting at that time. Everything in life is determined. The free will debate is only about who determines the choices of men. In BOTH systems, everything is determined and certain – except in open theism which is another thing altogether.
Grace always accomplishes its intended purpose, i.e., to save sinners from sin and judgment.
Arminianism also teaches that grace always accomplishes its intended purpose. However, it does not teach that saving sinners from sin and judgment is the only intention or type of grace. Arminians affirm at least 4 different types/forms of grace. For example, you are aware that grace is present in the lives of believers? The intention of that grace is not regeneration/justification, but rather sanctification. That grace is also said to be conditional. John Piper wrote about this extensively in his book, “Future Grace.”
Therefore, even Calvinism in general affirms different forms of grace, and different intended purposes for the various types. Like “common grace,” in Calvinism, you would agree that it's intended purpose is NOT to save sinners from sin and judgment, yes?
So, if Calvinism, then, accepts that there are types of grace which accomplish it's intended purpose, that purpose being other than salvation of sinners, then why do you charge Arminians, which also accepts that there are types of grace which accomplish it's intended purpose, that purpose being other than salvation of sinners, as teaching that every form (all 4+) types of Arminian"grace" accomplishes nothing
Further, Calvinism has never taught that God is 'dependent upon cooperation from man.'
Neither does Arminianism. What I was asking is this: If conditional yet unearned grace is recognized in Calvinism as “grace,” why is conditional yet unearned grace in the Arminian system suddenly called “dependent upon cooperation from man.”
Isn't that just a double standard of labeling? If not, what is the difference between conditional yet unearned grace and conditional yet unearned grace?
This is hardly the case of my equivocating salvation with everything.
But look at it this way: you said that Arminian grace accomplishes nothing at all. I ask for support, and you explain that Arminian grace accomplishes nothing in that [one specific type of grace in the Arminian system] does not accomplish salvation.
The only way that saying “it does not save” would logically lead to “it does nothing” is IF you believe that salvation is everything and another other than salvation is nothing. Do you see what I am trying to say here?
Furthermore, when you say that Arminian grace does not accomplish anything, you seem only to refer to one type of grace believe in: previnient grace. You do not address any other types of grace at all. For what reason, I do not know.
