Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Romans 5:6 ¶ For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Romans 5:6 ¶ While we were still helpless [powerless to provide for our salvation], at the right time Christ died [as a substitute] for the ungodly. |
Bible Question:
Greetings Orthodoxy! Thanks for the reply! Let me respond to each of your paragraphs for organizational purposes. 1) I really don't want to speak for anyone else, so I'll deal with my understanding of Arminianism. I really can't agree that Arminianism is any-kind-of-Pelagianism. Calvanism and Arminianism have much more in common than Pelagianism and Arminianism. Pelagianism did not believe: a) Depravity. b) Original Sin. c) Salvation by Grace alone. While Calvanism and Arminianism disagree on several major points, they do both teach that man is born a sinner, that man is born guilty, and that salvation is provided and obtained through God's grace alone. 2) Let me take a stab at your challenge. The following statements are very broad statements, but I think they illustrate the primary differene between Calvanism and Arminianism. a) Calvanism teaches that salvation is wholly a work of God. The only receipents of this salvation are those whom God has sovereignly elected to salvation. b) Arminianism teaches that salvation is whollly a work of God. The only receipents of that salvation are those who respond to God's sovereign offer of salvation. This salvation is a free gift offered to all alike and based entirely upon the death of Christ. Therefore, man adds nothing to salvation. God has simply sovereignly allowed man an option: accept or reject. However, acceptance or rejection does not add to or take away from the objective and accomplished fact of the atonement. Our choice only determines whether or not we get to receive the benefit of God's free gift. 3) I did a major paper (60 pages - Whew!) on Romans 9-11 in college. I also think that it clinches the argument (sorry, but I see Arminianism :-)). If you have any particulars that you would care to discuss or debate, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. It would probably require another thread. 4) Great majors! I didn't plan on taking any philosophy (or at least as little as possible) when I was in college. However, I ended up with enough to almost major in it. If you have been studying philosophy, you might have read one of my professors - Dr. William Hasker. Keep up the good (I'm assuming) work! Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
Bible Answer: I know the distinctives of Pelagianism. I do not think that Arminianism is coherent unless it denies all three of those things. TULIP, as silly an acronym as it may be, is a self-referential system. You cannot pull one letter out without getting rid of all of them. Thus, since Arminians deny particular redemption, they must also deny total depravity and salvation by grace. At least, you have to do this if you want to remain consistant. Your statements in your second paragraph are immediately contradictory. Allow me to demonstrate. 1) Salvation is wholly a work of God. [This would mean that nothing we do is involved. Salvation depends on divine fiat.] 2) Salvation comes to those who receive the offer of salvation. [If salvation is only an _offer_ is not wholly an act of God]. You can't have it both ways. The time for man to make a choice ended with Adam. That was the covenant of works. As soon as you add any aspect of choosing you turn the atonement into a pass/fail prohibition test, just like eating the fruit. If you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? They believe exactly the same thing and they've got their theology worked out completely. Plus they've got good views on worship, and even though their opinions on the Sacrament are pretty weird, they're often better than most Protestant churches. So if you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? Where did you go to college? And how can you possibly get around the statements of God's sovereign choice in Romans? I'd be fascinated to hear how you can interpret "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" as anything but elective in nature. You sat under _Hasker_?! Yes, I've read him. Heard him speak actually. May God have mercy upon you. In case you hadn't been following him lately, Hasker is currently at the forefront of the utterly godless and pagan "open theism" movement (and I will neither retract that nor apologize for it). I couldn't get through the book without throwing it across the room on a number of occasions. Don't get me started on Hasker. Suffice it to say that I do not regard him as a Christian brother. You can believe a lot, but open theism is too far. Enough on that. I really don't want to talk about it here or at all, for that matter. |