Arminius believed in total depravity? What am I missing?

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by Paul manata

This is getting old and boring.

[Edited on 5-3-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[Vytautas]

Originally posted by Paul manata
No, I think I can prove that if one believes that the Father draws everyone then one believes universalism. That's it.

You have not proven that the believing is the necessary condition to the drawing.

All you did, again, is simply assert.

This is getting old and boring.

If you want to use many verses, do so.

Show that belief is a necessary condition to being drawn.

"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

The Father gives the son a group of people. All those given will believe. If you're not given you won't believe. Believing on Jesus is coming to Jesus. We know that NO ONE can come to Jesus UNLESS the father draws him.

p unless q is properly translated:

~q --> p.

That is, if the father does not draw, then no one can come.

The drawing is *necessary* to the coming (believing).

QED.

What you have is a material conditional, meaning it does not show a necessary condition, for example the antecedent can be false, that is the Father draws, and the consequent can be true, that is it is not the case that no one can come to Jesus. The conditional is true in this condition so that the relationship is not of necessity.

 

[5solasmom]

WOW! Thank you so much! It'll take me a while to read and sift through all the information - if I have more questions, I'll definately be back..LOL!

 

[Scott Shahan]

Your dialog really shined alot of light on this for me.

 

[A2JC4life]

I have to agree with whomever it was who commented that Arminius and Arminianism aren't necessarily equal. The so-called "five points of Calvinism" are not really Calvin's points; they're from the Synod of Dordt. And Arminianism is generally accepted as being the five points to which the Synod was responding. I personally believe it's irrelevant whether Arminius himself believed in total depravity; he as in individual is not in question here (since he's dead, it really doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong), the DOCTRINE is in question.

The problem I have seen with Arminianists is inconsistency. Every Christian I know would say that we are totally depraved. HOWEVER, the vast majority of them would also make statements that utterly contradict this. For example, the quote in the original set above which says that "faith is the sinner's gift to God." This, btw, is in absolute opposition to the Scripture, which explicitly states that faith is God's gift to the sinner. ("...and THAT [the faith] not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.")