Roll-call for Arminians on BB... Bueller... Bueller...

[humblethinker]

Roll call for all the Arminians... Bueller... Bueller?

"If you're not a Calvinist, would you identify yourself as an Arminian?" Anyone...?

Why or Why not?

 

[mandym]

No because I'm not an Arminian

 

[StefanM]

I'd call myself a four-point Arminian.

 

[Skandelon]

Roll call for all the Arminians... Bueller... Bueller?

"If you're not a Calvinist, would you identify yourself as an Arminian?" Anyone...?

Why or Why not?

I don't mind when people in this type of setting use this label for simplicity sake, because typically I know what they mean by it. But I wouldn't ever just come out and say to people I don't know, I'm an "Arminian," because I doubt they would have the right understanding of what that term means. And I'm afraid they would assume it means I just believe one can lose their salvation, even though Arminius himself didn't teach that.

 

[humblethinker]

I don't mind when people in this type of setting use this label for simplicity sake, because typically I know what they mean by it.

I agree but I was getting the feeling by some calvinist's here that if we weren't a Calvinist and if we believe in free will, we are necessarily Arminian.

One of the reasons I started this thread is to see if there were any 'full arminians', so to speak. I anticipated that there would not be any on this BB (hence the "Beuller, Bueller" quote).

One of my concerns is that some Cals may inaccurately have the impression that part of our premise in our 'debates' is that one can loose their salvation. Another misconception may be that we support the premise that man can choose to be saved any time he wants to based on his sheer will with or without any help from God. I think there are probably several more misconceptions. These misconceptions seem like they would lead to straw men and paper tigers. Part of communicating with someone who views things differently is to be able to understand his viewpoint. I believe an opposing argument, opinion or preference can be understood without necessarily accepting it as my own. This takes patience, understanding and flexibility.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

 

[Skandelon]

I hear ya. Labels can get confusing. There are dozens of different brands of Calvinists too, so things can get a bit confused. You are right. A big part of debate is learning your opponents actual views before jumping into full attack. Very little of that is done here. Sometimes I wish there was a thread where the requirement was to restate your opponents views in your own words for every response. This would ensure understanding before moving to the next point.

BTW, I love your Aristotle quote, I'm stealing it and adding it to my signature.

 

[humblethinker]

Sometimes I wish there was a thread where the requirement was to restate your opponents views in your own words for every response. This would ensure understanding before moving to the next point.

Yes, I think this approach is a good idea even in interpersonal relationships like marriage and friendships.

 

[mandym]

I hear ya. Labels can get confusing. There are dozens of different brands of Calvinists too, so things can get a bit confused. You are right. A big part of debate is learning your opponents actual views before jumping into full attack. Very little of that is done here. Sometimes I wish there was a thread where the requirement was to restate your opponents views in your own words for every response. This would ensure understanding before moving to the next point.

BTW, I love your Aristotle quote, I'm stealing it and adding it to my signature.

I understand your post to be saying that it is your desire that all posters on the BB be required to restate the position of the posts they are responding to in their own words.

I could be wrong but this may just create an equal level of rancor when the intent is misrepresented as is the habit of some here. What we need is for some to quit trying to discredit people and just stick to the issues.

 

[glfredrick]

Roll call for all the Arminians... Bueller... Bueller?

"If you're not a Calvinist, would you identify yourself as an Arminian?" Anyone...?

Why or Why not?

Very few here on the board will self-identify as Arminians because they understand the baggage that comes along with that label. In the same light, they poke at Calvinists and suggest that in order "to follow Calvin" we must needs adopt paedo-baptism and a few other tenets that Calvin himself followed.

Neither are true, for a THEOLOGICAL POSITION is not akin to a denomination or a religious practice. But getting people to realize that is like pulling hen's teeth... Just isn't gonna happen.

Oh, and for the record, most here would actually fall under the Amyraldian label but they (for the most part) don't even know that exists.

 

[mandym]

Very few here on the board will self-identify as Arminians because they understand the baggage that comes along with that label.

Or it could be because they are just not Arminian.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

BTW, I love your Aristotle quote, I'm stealing it and adding it to my signature.

Then you would not want to hear Cato the Elders response to the life of Aristotle, I'm thinkin. :laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

Very few here on the board will self-identify as Arminians because they understand the baggage that comes along with that label. In the same light, they poke at Calvinists and suggest that in order "to follow Calvin" we must needs adopt paedo-baptism and a few other tenets that Calvin himself followed.

Neither are true, for a THEOLOGICAL POSITION is not akin to a denomination or a religious practice. But getting people to realize that is like pulling hen's teeth... Just isn't gonna happen.

Oh, and for the record, most here would actually fall under the Amyraldian label but they (for the most part) don't even know that exists.

isn't that what I believe inas a model, 4 points of TULIP, but have the death of Christ being extent of Unlimited atonement?

 

[Bob Alkire]

Oh, and for the record, most here would actually fall under the Amyraldian label but they (for the most part) don't even know that exists.

I guess I'm not with it today, I haven't heard Moses Amyraut or what he taught sense the 60's in seminary?

Many Calvinists put 4 point Calvinist under the Amyraldian label because many reject the doctrine of limited atonement. Calvinist put those who reject that regeneration must precede faith in the same camp. However Moses Amyraut didn't teach this last one.

I'm not in either camp.

 

[glfredrick]

Or it could be because they are just not Arminian.

Thanks for making my point... One is not an Arminian or a Calvinist. One is a Christian who holds Arminian or Calvinist theological views.

This concept of identifying AS an Arminian or Calvinist is the problem, and what happens is that people do indeed hold the exact tenets of the theology, but disavow the theology because they do not wish to identify wit it AS one of the labeled persons.

 

[JesusFan]

Thanks for making my point... One is not an Arminian or a Calvinist. One is a Christian who holds Arminian or Calvinist theological views.

This concept of identifying AS an Arminian or Calvinist is the problem, and what happens is that people do indeed hold the exact tenets of the theology, but disavow the theology because they do not wish to identify wit it AS one of the labeled persons.

You mean that we today say we are "Of calvin, luthor, hodge etc?"
Instead of saying "Of Christ?"

 

[mandym]

Thanks for making my point... One is not an Arminian or a Calvinist. One is a Christian who holds Arminian or Calvinist theological views.

This concept of identifying AS an Arminian or Calvinist is the problem, and what happens is that people do indeed hold the exact tenets of the theology, but disavow the theology because they do not wish to identify wit it AS one of the labeled persons.

Or....it is because one holds to neither theological views. And I did nothing to prove your point.

 

[JesusFan]

Or....it is because one holds to neither theological views. And I did nothing to prove your point.

But wouldn't a Christian holding to be a Baptist HAVE to be of either Arminian or Calvinistic leanings?
What other systems exist, other than say lutherism or Roman catholic?

 

[glfredrick]

You mean that we today say we are "Of calvin, luthor, hodge etc?"
Instead of saying "Of Christ?"

Pretty much... Except that most even get it wrong when they identify with a theological position, for instance assuming "Calvinism" means that they follow John Calvin.

 

[glfredrick]

Or....it is because one holds to neither theological views. And I did nothing to prove your point.

You are suggesting an an-theological position. No such thing exists. Everyone fits somewhere within the continuum between Pelagian and hyper-Calvinist. They just don't realize or recognize that they do -- or that there are even positions with which they fit.

 

[glfredrick]

But wouldn't a Christian holding to be a Baptist HAVE to be of either Arminian or Calvinistic leanings?
What other systems exist, other than say lutherism or Roman catholic?

You have asked an incoherent question comparing theological holdings to denominationalism. They are not one and the same.

Time to break out the systematic theology and learn what theological positions entail.