I've already been pulled up for being stereotypical in my Treaty of Waitangi post, but I have to use 'labels' and speak in fairly general terms in order that people know what I'm talking about.
I guess my struggle is to be gracious. All too often I get fired up about something - I see it myself as black-and-white(whether I'm right or not is a different story), and become frustrated when people either can't see what I'm talking about, or whats worse, they can see what I'm talking about, but continue to hold on to their side of the story despite having sound reason and fact right telling them otherwise.
If you cannot reason with someone, what else can you do? If an arminianist sees a calvinist(I know - stereotypical labels again) living their life according to their beliefs as a calvinist, the arminianist may simply interpret that from within their arminianist framework, and it will not have any effect.
My issue is not with arminianists, it is with arminianism, or in fact, any train of thought whereby man has a hand in his salvation.
As I understand it(please correct me if I'm wrong), traditional arminianism states that God, through the saving work of Christ on the cross, and by His perfect life here on earth, provides the means of salvation, offering it as a gift to all mankind. It is up to man, however, to accept that gift of his own 'free will', and once he has accepted the gift, he is saved, and the Holy Spirit then dwells in him.
This view implies a number of things that I believe deny the Sovereignty of God.
If man has 'free will' then He can act outside of God's will, which I believe he cannot.
If man must chose to accept the gift of salvation, he must have some inherent good, which I believe he does not. The Holy Spirit must first be bestowed upon us by a wilfull act of the Lord before we can choose Christ.
Also, if man must choose his salvation, where then is God's grace? And if sinful man is relying on his own choice for salvation, where is the solid assurance that firstly, he is actually saved, and secondly, that he will always be saved?
I'd much rather rely entirely on God for salvation, than on my own sinful choice.
I do realise that there are two sides to every coin, and that the arminianist view must have some credibility, or it would not have lasted. But I really do struggle with the points as mentioned above.
[Lots of kids]
I often used to see a Daihatsu Charade on the motorway in the mornings with the numberplate : 'DAD OF X'. I guess that it meant that he had 10 kids.
Well, I saw the same car on the motorway, but the plates now read : 'PA OF 11', so they must have had another kid. I'm hoping that the wee Daihatsu wasn't their only means of transport.
[More on Pelagius]
I'd forgetten that just a few days ago I'd read this on John Barach's blog.
