1 Corinthians 2:14

[Sean]

A. Receiving / Loving Christ is an autonomous act of your will.
B. Receiving / Loving Christ is a supreme good.
C. Supremely good acts are meritorious.

And this is where a systematic theology can go wrong. Your conclusion is based on a faulty premise. Faith is not a meritorious act. The apostle Paul states this explicitly in Romans 4:4-5. If you do not accept the words of an apostle, then how can we debate this issue? Does it not concern you that your conclusion contradicts scripture? When scripture and ones theology collide, which one has the highest authority?

[seer]

A. Receiving / Loving Christ is an autonomous act of your will.
B. Receiving / Loving Christ is a supreme good.
C. Supremely good acts are meritorious.

And this is where a systematic theology can go wrong. Your conclusion is based on a faulty premise. Faith is not a meritorious act. The apostle Paul states this explicitly in Romans 4:4-5. If you do not accept the words of an apostle, then how can we debate this issue? Does it not concern you that your conclusion contradicts scripture? When scripture and ones theology collide, which one has the highest authority?

Let try this again Sean...

1. Loving God is a Supremely good act.
2. It was your decision (or not) to love God.
3. Supremely good acts are meritorious.
4. Therefore your decision to love God is a meritorious act.


Which premise is wrong? Are you saying that loving God is not a good act? That in the end it was not your decision to love God? BTW - you are begging the question. We are trying to decide whether faith (love for God) is a unilateral act/gift of God. Saying that that it was caused by Him (gifted to us) removes all boasting and fits nicely with Paul's point. That is why Paul is saying that there can be no boasting. If not you will have to show which of my premises are incorrect.

[seer]

Tell me this, Seer --

Do you make choices throughout a given day whether to follow Christ's teaching ? When (if) you do and God blesses your obedience through spiritual growth or otherwise, do you boast in your decision -- do you have a reason to boast ?

From where comes my power to obey? From where comes my desire to obey? If I can't rightly find them in me, but in God as He lives through me, then where is the boasting?

If I also recognize no power within me to choose to follow Christ but in God who provides me with the grace to choose Him, why is it that you think I have something to boast about? I believe that grace is provided to all men in sufficient measure - not all men allow that grace to work through them to choose Him just as not all Christians allow God's grace to work them at all times to do His will. How is it that you somehow feel no boasting but don't recognize my own lack of boasting?

The question remains Darin, what IN YOU allowed God to do His work? It all comes back to you... Why are you different than your finally lost neighbor? Why do you love God and not him? Did you make that difference or did God? That's the bottom line really. BTW - I'm not suggesting that you, or any Arminian here, goes around boasting about their choice - I'm just saying that it gives a logical ground for boasting. Also I did a new syllogism for Sean, I was rushed yesterday, and I hate doing syllogisms.

[Sean]

A. Receiving / Loving Christ is an autonomous act of your will.
B. Receiving / Loving Christ is a supreme good.
C. Supremely good acts are meritorious.

And this is where a systematic theology can go wrong. Your conclusion is based on a faulty premise. Faith is not a meritorious act. The apostle Paul states this explicitly in Romans 4:4-5. If you do not accept the words of an apostle, then how can we debate this issue? Does it not concern you that your conclusion contradicts scripture? When scripture and ones theology collide, which one has the highest authority?

Let try this again Sean...

1. Loving God is a Supremely good act.
2. It was your decision (or not) to love God.
3. Supremely good acts are meritorious.
4. Therefore your decision to love God is a meritorious act.


Which premise is wrong? Are you saying that loving God is not a good act? That in the end it was not your decision to love God? BTW - you are begging the question. We are trying to decide whether faith (love for God) is a unilateral act/gift of God. Saying that that it was caused by Him (gifted to us) removes all boasting and fits nicely with Paul's point. That is why Paul is saying that there can be no boasting. If not you will have to show which of my premises are incorrect.

It's simple.

Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

Paul has explained it. To him who does not work, but believes. Belief is not a work. Your not arguing against me, your arguing against Paul. Show me where in context it says God caused (coerced) Abraham to believe. Show me where it says he didn't make the choice, but rather God did. Your equating of caused with gifted is unscriptural. Never would you say that a gift causes something. It offers the opportunity (grants) but it doesn't follow that is causes by necessity. If I give you a gift, do I cause you to accept the gift? Do I cause you to use the gift? No. The Calvinist wants faith granted to mean faith coerced. If this were the case, people would not be able to fall away from the faith. The burden of proof is on the Calvinist to prove that faith is not man's belief but God's coercing them.

[Sean]

Seer,
Just as you would not exegete 1 Cor 2:14 and it's surrounding context, you will not exegete Romans 4. You can see why discussing this is fruitless. You are arguing from your theological presuppositions and human reasoning and ignoring pertinent texts. So how do we decide what is right?

[darinhouston]

• Sean isn't "begging the question." He's "appealing to authority," which in Aristotelian logic is a logical fallacy. However, in doing theology, that's a fallacy that I think should not be properly applied to the Apostles.
  
  I believe seer is stating the following:
  
  • Arminians have a theology that leads to boasting in their faith
    Paul is authoritative.
    Paul says faith is not something to boast about.
    Therefore, Arminians' theology is wrong.
  In defending the first premise (which does otherwise beg the question), seer would say:
  
  • Arminians believe they have something within themselves that allow them to have faith in God.
    Having faith in God is a Supremely good act.
    Supremely good acts are meritorious.
    Meritorious acts give rise to boasting
    Therefore the arminian's theology leads to boasting in their faith
  Now, if our formal logic is finally proper here (I think it is -- someone correct me if I'm wrong), let's examine the premises.
  
  • The ultimate premise is a bit of a straw man. Arminians believe it is God that provides the grace within themselves to allow them to have faith in God.
    
    The secondary premise is a bit of a hidden "begging the question." The undefined term "Supremely good act" sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to define faith as something that inherently gives rise to boasting. Seer needs to define this term and defend this premise since it is contrary to Paul's clear teaching.

[seer]

• Now, if our formal logic is finally proper here (I think it is -- someone correct me if I'm wrong), let's examine the premises.
  
  • The ultimate premise is a bit of a straw man. Arminians believe it is God that provides the grace within themselves to allow them to have faith in God.
    
    The secondary premise is a bit of a hidden "begging the question." The undefined term "Supremely good act" sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to define faith as something that inherently gives rise to boasting. Seer needs to define this term and defend this premise since it is contrary to Paul's clear teaching.

Remember Darin, you asked for this.

First, the devils believe in God. So what is the difference here? We love God, the devils hate God. So Christian faith is more than mere belief. So you and your finally lost neighbor, by grace, are given the ability to love God - you decide to actually love God, he continues to hate God. You have chosen the supremely good course of action. An action worthy of merit.

Second, I'm not sure what your second objection is. Do you deny that loving God is a supremely good act or do you deny that supremely good acts are worthy of merit?

[seer]

Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness

Paul has explained it. To him who does not work, but believes. Belief is not a work. Your not arguing against me, your arguing against Paul. Show me where in context it says God caused (coerced) Abraham to believe. Show me where it says he didn't make the choice, but rather God did. Your equating of caused with gifted is unscriptural. Never would you say that a gift causes something. It offers the opportunity (grants) but it doesn't follow that is causes by necessity. If I give you a gift, do I cause you to accept the gift? Do I cause you to use the gift? No. The Calvinist wants faith granted to mean faith coerced. If this were the case, people would not be able to fall away from the faith. The burden of proof is on the Calvinist to prove that faith is not man's belief but God's coercing them.

You are still question begging Sean. Why is faith not a work? Is the because it is something that God infuses in us? Or is it because loving God is not meritorious act? But that would be irrational as my syllogism points out. And if the gift is faith in and love for God then the gift certainly does cause something (faith and love, which really are one thing). If I am not gifted with the desire to love God, then I won't love God. And if I'm gifted with the desire to love God, then I will love God. This is not about potential, it's about actuality.

[Sean]

Why is faith not a work?

Gee, I wonder. Why do you not accept what Paul said? Is your "logic" more solid than God's word? You work very hard to try and get around this scripture.

If faith is in and of itself righteous, they why does God have to credit faith as righteousness?

If I am not gifted with the desire to love God, then I won't love God.

Where does the bible say this? It's not good enough to assume your presuppositions are true and start from there. You have to prove them from scripture.

[seer]

Why is faith not a work?

Gee, I wonder. Why do you not accept what Paul said? Is your "logic" more solid than God's word? You work very hard to try and get around this scripture.

If faith is in and of itself righteous, they why does God have to credit faith as righteousness? .

You are joking right? I agree with Paul 100% That faith is a gift of God. That is why we get no credit. Or don't you believe that faith is a gift of God?

Where does the bible say this? It's not good enough to assume your presuppositions are true and start from there. You have to prove them from scripture.

I don't understand Sean, are you now denying that faith is a gift? And if your love for God is something that you produced then by definition it is a meritorious act. And that is why Paul says there is no boasting involved - because it is NOT OF US.

Really Sean, I find it distrubing to see christians fight so to keep something for themselves. To so glory in their flesh!


For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.


For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.