Why Do Arminians Keep Saying Such Things?

[Lux et veritas]

True, study does keep one from such things but I, not you, have shown why your opinion is completely without any merit or truth.

Since you post is deviod of such it is apparent that you can't disagree with what I posted but instead through out you seemingly usual ad-homs because due to an apparent lack of substance.

In case you don't understand the term - semi-pelagainism refers back to it's root origin and thus it core position. Man can and will seek after and come to God initially and completely apart from any influence and grace of God. The distinction between Pelegainism and Semi-Pel in this is that in the 'semi-pel' view, God 'rewards' man for his efforts with grace so as to save him.

If you place Arminianism in that catagory it is you are completely ignorant of any real study on the matter. THus far you give nothing to substantiate your opinion of what semi-pel holds to at it's core foundation.

I just knew it. Although it took one post of yours less than I thought until you threw up the dreaded "ad homs". Shows you don't know what that is either. Semi-pelagianism does not teach that "Man can and will seek after and come to God initially and completely apart from any influence and grace of God" - that's what Pelagius taught. That is full-fledged pelagianism.

Again, we're talking SEMI-pelagianism here ... at least everybody else is. Why don't you jump on board and do the same? At least then we can go further with the discussion. But as long as you're talking 'apples' while everyone else is speaking about 'organges', it really is fruitless.

 

[Rippon]

I stand by every post.

Well stop loitering and do something constructive for a change.

 

[webdog]

No false accusations. When it comes to that department you are the man!

R-E-A-D my post numbered 55. You love to recklessly throw your little grenades. I had reread my post and corrected an oversight. Maybe you should do the same on occasion.

As I had said in that post of mine:"A and S-P are not identical in all respects -- but the similarities are prounounced. Both are synergistic."

Let me help you out here...not even C-L-O-S-E to classic arminianism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism

 

[webdog]

I just knew it. Although it took one post of yours less than I thought until you threw up the dreaded "ad homs". Shows you don't know what that is either. Semi-pelagianism does not teach that "Man can and will seek after and come to God initially and completely apart from any influence and grace of God" - that's what Pelagius taught. That is full-fledged pelagianism.

Again, we're talking SEMI-pelagianism here ... at least everybody else is. Why don't you jump on board and do the same? At least then we can go further with the discussion. But as long as you're talking 'apples' while everyone else is speaking about 'organges', it really is fruitless.

In case you need to understand SEMI- pelagianism 101...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism

 

[Lux et veritas]

In case you need to understand SEMI- pelagianism 101...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism

You are going to base your point of view in a debate on a quote from .... (drum roll) wikipedia? Not that I don't think it has no value, but let's deal with what these views actually do teach. I should know ... I used to teach it.

 

[webdog]

You are going to base your point of view in a debate on a quote from .... (drum roll) wikipedia? Not that I don't think it has no value, but let's deal with what these views actually do teach. I should know ... I used to teach it.

...then you must have done your students a great disservice, as you do not understand pelagianism or semi pelagianism.

 

[TCGreek]

Of course they were Arminian objections that Paul dealt with in Romans 9. And if someone tells me that I am speaking anachronistically --- so be it. No Calvinist would have issues with Paul's words to the objector(s) -- only Semi-Pelagians/Arminians.



Yes, you'd have to be Pauline=Calvinistic.

Rippon, my friend.

With all due respect, I don't believe Paul was a Calvinist.

Calvinism is simply an attempt to understand the doctrine of salvation.

 

[Dale-c]

TCGreek, of course Paul was not a "calvinist" in that sense. Actually Calvin was Pauline in his theology to get the order right.


Now, one note I would like to add.
I have in the past been willing to mildly rebuke Rippon at times when I felt that his attitude was getting in the way of his argument.

But in this case on this thread I must come to his defense.
It does not appear anyone has been reading the OP very closely.
I understood it exactly. It is blasphemy to say that God chooses randomly who will be saved.
It is also slanderous to accuse calvinists of believing that.

There are very, very few anti calvinists on this board who are even able to accurately articulate the calvinist position.

Also most anti calvinist here refuse to be categorized in any historical system of theology so in return it is impossible to accurately articulate their position either since many of them don't even know their own beliefs.

When I have attempted to set up polls to better understand people's theological positions, there simply is not enough options available to keep everyone happy.

In short, most people on the BB don't really have a clue about a detailed system of theology on the subject of soteriology. Many simply hate calvinism yet can't line up their own position with any established position from church history.

 

[saturneptune]

TCGreek, of course Paul was not a "calvinist" in that sense. Actually Calvin was Pauline in his theology to get the order right.


Now, one note I would like to add.
I have in the past been willing to mildly rebuke Rippon at times when I felt that his attitude was getting in the way of his argument.

But in this case on this thread I must come to his defense.
It does not appear anyone has been reading the OP very closely.
I understood it exactly. It is blasphemy to say that God chooses randomly who will be saved.
It is also slanderous to accuse calvinists of believing that.

There are very, very few anti calvinists on this board who are even able to accurately articulate the calvinist position.

Also most anti calvinist here refuse to be categorized in any historical system of theology so in return it is impossible to accurately articulate their position either since many of them don't even know their own beliefs.

When I have attempted to set up polls to better understand people's theological positions, there simply is not enough options available to keep everyone happy.

In short, most people on the BB don't really have a clue about a detailed system of theology on the subject of soteriology. Many simply hate calvinism yet can't line up their own position with any established position from church history.

I agree with your statement about those who do not support Calvinism not fully understanding what Calvinists believe. It took me a while to understand and accept the ideas as being Biblical.

Yes, the idea presented of God sitting up in heaven with a magic wand zapping people at random into regeneration totally misrepresents the doctrines of grace and sovereignty. Everything God does has a purpose without error.

What I do not agree with you about is this individual referenced using the words "blasphemy and heretic" in a reckless and unjust way. He uses it so much, it has become a common adjective and noun. I have not seen anyone calling him those names.
Differences of opinion is not what stirs me up. What stirs me up are those who sit on a pedestal and condemn others for not agreeing with them, to the point of calling names that border on accusing them of being lost.

Frankly, I wish the guy was on the other side.

 

[Darrenss1]

TCGreek, of course Paul was not a "calvinist" in that sense. Actually Calvin was Pauline in his theology to get the order right.

Such a stupid argument, anyone could say, oh hey you know what, I follow Pauline theology, that's why I'm not a Calvinist. :laugh:

But in this case on this thread I must come to his defense.
It does not appear anyone has been reading the OP very closely.
I understood it exactly. It is blasphemy to say that God chooses randomly who will be saved.
It is also slanderous to accuse calvinists of believing that.
.

God predestining sinners to the lake of fire doesn't line up with scripture from what I can see. The idea that God can specifically purpose 1 sinner to heaven but the next God passes over is being inconsistant with the character of God. Either way God must have a purpose or He is not God. Therefore since God has a purpose why does God choose 1 over the other?

The question doesn't bother me because God's purpose is for the gospel to be for both (not just the elect as the Calvinist would say) and both have the opportuntity to respond. No blasphemy at all. The gospel preached to 5000, God's purposes are that all 5000 can respond and come to the knowledge of the truth, repentence, faith.

There are very, very few anti calvinists on this board who are even able to accurately articulate the calvinist position.

A charge no Calvinist have been able to validate. Calvinist always say that when objections are asked that they don't want to answer.

Also most anti calvinist here refuse to be categorized in any historical system of theology so in return it is impossible to accurately articulate their position either since many of them don't even know their own beliefs.

For the sake of it, so what? We have the bible, we have the authority of scripture with us today and your point?

Many simply hate calvinism yet can't line up their own position with any established position from church history.

And??

Darren

 

[Rippon]

I agree with your statement about those who do not support Calvinism not fully understanding what Calvinists believe. It took me a while to understand and accept the ideas as being Biblical.

When did you accept them as being biblical? On 6/15/06 you started a thread called:"Serious Questions For Calvinists." You had said that you wanted "to learn from Calvinists."

Yes, the idea presented of God sitting up in heaven with a magic wand zapping people at random into regeneration totally misrepresents the doctrines of grace and sovereignty. Everything God does has a purpose without error.

I'm glad to hear you say that view misrepresents the doctrines of grace and God's sovereignty. But you wouldn't dare to call it blasphemy -- just a bit unorthodox maybe?!

What I do not agree with you about is this individual referenced using the words "blasphemy and heretic" in a reckless and unjust way.

Did I use the word "heretic" in my OP? I don't think so. For people to reference God in the manner I cited them doing is not really blasphemy?! Just what would you classify as blasphemy? You are such a tolerant person.

Differences of opinion is not what stirs me up. What stirs me up are those who sit on a pedestal and condemn others for not agreeing with them, to the point of calling names that border on accusing them of being lost.

I guess you are very unhappy with Jesus and Paul. They used some pretty strong language too when warranted.

Frankly, I wish the guy was on the other side.

"The guy" is on the Lord's side. You are beside the point.

 

[saturneptune]

"The guy" is on the Lord's side. You are beside the point.

The Lord's side is the one that is Biblical. As far as me being beside the point, the only point I see is the one on top of your head.

You use heretic and blasphemy on a regular basis, if not this thread others.

As far as you dragging back up threads from three years ago, what is it you are trying to accomplish? The issue in your case is not a belief in Calvinism, it is your reckless and arrogant attitude towards others.

Why don't you try the tone TC Greek uses in his response to your last post as to how to use grace to express a disagreement?

While you are at it, will you please show us where someone actually said the Lord picks his elect at random?

 

[Rippon]

You use heretic and blasphemy on a regular basis, if not this thread others.

I have used the word "heretical" and blasphemy" occasionally (not regularly)when the proverbial shoe fits.

As far as you dragging back up threads from three years ago, what is it you are trying to accomplish?

Accuracy.

While you are at it, will you please show us where someone actually said the Lord picks his elect at random?

Okay.

In the thread God And The Will Of Man Jack Russ said in post 24:"Only a few select people were capriciously chosen for salvation for no apparent reason."

Helen, in the same thread, said in post 72 :"Calvinism is a cruel,barbaric capricious doctrine... it is entirely anti-God and anti-biblical."

Helen informed us in post number 7 that:"God can appear so capricious to men in the Reformed doctrines."



Jack Russ claimed in post 40 of Why Did God Hate Esau: "But He doesn't choose capricously for no reason at all as Calvinists assert."

In the thread Order Of Salvation Darren asserted in post 93:"Why God willing all to be saved purposed to exclude some and decide willy-nilly that some or many or most are not going to be given faith even though they may hear the gospel and preaching or the truth and conviction of the Holy Spirit."

In post 95 of the same thread Darren said:"The selection process for God to save vs not to save comes down to an arbitrary decision IF the Calvinist view is correct."

The above is just a fraction of things many here on the BB have said of that nature.

 

[Rippon]

Saturneptune, it is a bit hypercritical on your part to play both sides of the field.

You started a thread called Calvin and Heros(sic) of the Reformation.

In post 7 Brother Williams :"Murdering someone always gets you famous to a degree..."

In post 12 Reformed Baptist responded to BW:"Not this again."

In post 13 Saturneptune:"RB, I agree with you this time."

In post 14 Skypair:"Servinus (sic)? Oh, that's right. He was slain by Calvinists."

In post 15 Saturneptune:"Moderators, please close this thread. I should have known better."

But then you exhibit the same level of immaturity in other threads as Skypair and BW.

In this current thread you have said in posts 54 and 58;"John Calvin, who in essence was a theological thug."

In Do You Admire Any Preachers you have related the following in post 98:"...you could nominate your buddy John Calvin for a preacher you admire. You know, Mr. fire and Water, fire for burning people at the stake, and water for sprinkling infants."

In the thread John Calvin (started by Deacon) you said in post 35:"That's great. I'll pick up some Michael Servetus candles for the cake."

In the same thread you told us in post 8 :"Maybe we could get him a picture of Michael Servetus to hang upon the altar while he baptizes infants."

 

[JDale]

And so it descends into personal attacks and notes on past insults. Yeah... This is helpful Brethren.

 

[Rippon]

And so it descends into personal attacks and notes on past insults. Yeah... This is helpful Brethren.

A bunch of you need to engage in truth-telling --- you're a prime culprit when it comes to bearing false witness JDale.

 

[Rippon]

This is what Pastor Larry said on 10/14/05. It has bearing on the OP.

"Calvinism does not teach anything arbitrary or capricious about God's election, no matter what some loud mouths might continually repeat."

 

[saturneptune]

This is what Pastor Larry said on 10/14/05. It has bearing on the OP.

"Calvinism does not teach anything arbitrary or capricious about God's election, no matter what some loud mouths might continually repeat."

This has a bearing on the op also, and in a way you could contribute the most.

 

[webdog]

A bunch of you need to engage in truth-telling --- you're a prime culprit when it comes to bearing false witness JDale.

"Those who live in glass houses..."

 

[rsr]

This thread, having degenerated into slug fest, is closed.