1. Where it the argument for Universal Prevenient Grace?

2. Where is the argument for libertarian freedom?

Why does one man believe and not the other. Smuggled into Billy’s view is the assumption that grace is quantitative not qualitative. Where is the supporting argument?

Arminius would say that the “opening of the heart” is esential: “It follows that our will is not free from the first fall; that is, it is not free to [will the] Good, unless it be made free by the Son through His Spirit . . . For when a new light and knowledge of God and Christ and of the Divine Will have benn kindled in [the] mind; and when new affections, inclinations and motions agreeing with the law of God, have been excited in [the] heart and new powers have been produced in him; it comes to pass that, being liberated from the kingdom of darkness and being now made ‘light in the Lord’ (Eph. 5.8), he understands the true and saving Good . . . being made capable in Christ, co-operating now with God he prosecutes the Good . . .” (Works, Vol. II, 194-195).

I know this goes against the theory of Irresistible Grace, but nonetheless, this is what he taught and what Arminians believe; God must do the work in the heart, but that work is not irresistible. I realize we part ways theologically at this point.

God bless. (I like your blog)

Billy

You are correct that Arminius affirmed total depravity while it appears that some Southern Baptists do not (i.e. semi-Pelagianism or outright Pelagianism). So in the Arminian scheme of things, how would you make sense of God opening the heart of Lydia? Does Arminius have any comment on Acts 16:14?

Billy

I agree with so much of what you have stated concerning these issues; So Much! That Election Ballot was absurd! And as far as one opening up his or her own heart, I am simply speechless.

Regarding man’s “free will,” James Arminius wrote, “The Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace” (Works, Vol. II, 192).

Though I know you to be a committed Calvinist, and though I know you will not agree wholeheartedly with what Arminius taught, you can at least witness for yourself that the aberration in that Sunday School literature was not true, classical Arminianism — much of S Baptist SS lit. is not! Pelagianism is alive and well.

Good post and good food for thought from you and Newton. I will thinking on these things.

Billy

Notice JK’s obvious equivocation between “believe” and “regeneration.” Where is the supporting argument? Jesus places Nicodemus responsibility for lack of UNDERSTANDING on Nicodemus – but this is wholly consonant with Calvinism, since in Calvinism the only thing that keeps a person from believing is his own love of his sin. His ignorance is moral.

The point of the conversation is that Nicodemus, as one of the religious leaders – one who lived on the end of the Old Covenant, should have understood these things. He had the whole canon of Scripture at that time before him. He came from a tradition that elevated and studied them greatly.

Further, Nicodemus is not held out as one who does not believe. On the contrary, he is presented here as the exception to the rule. He is the only one of the Pharisaic party who actually comes to Jesus. Look at verse 2. This statement is exactly the OPPOSITE of the majority of the other Pharisees. He is coming a representative of the pious ones who did believe, not those who did not.

He then goes on to talk about the Spirit moving like the wind, a mystery. The Spirit goes where He will. At no point does Jesus say, “be baptized to be born again” in this entire text.

JK apparently believes in baptismal regeneration, but 3:5 is an allusion to Ezekiel 36:25 – 27, not a statement about baptismal regeneration.

I don’t think I have ever met you before, so I am assuming that this is your first comment here. Your excursis, though appreciated, is tangential to the post and prima facia incoherent. The idea that John 3 supports baptismal regeneration and that the reason why Nicodemus was not regenerate because he it was a refusal of himself is logically untenable and hermeneutically unsatisfactory. In case, I do not plan on hijacking this post to debate you on this point.