IS there an actual "Arminian" Study Bible Out There?

Yes. Well Bob apologized for that statement in that same thread. He was wrong about that fact as I proved in that very thread.

That you didn't notice that is no surprise. You seem not to even notice that Charles Spurgeon is a CALVINIST!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!:laugh:

That amuses me!

 

Three very good reasons to shun this one.

 

I'll see your :tongue3: and raise you :tongue3::tongue3: and a pffffffttt!!!

 

I fold. :laugh:

 

Sigh.

What Dr. Bob apologized for was some exaggeration on his part ("They were 100% Anglican Catholic.").

Believe me I would welcome him dumping his oft-repeated hypothesis/pronouncements involving Anglicans/Calvinists/Baptists and the Geneva/KingJames Bibles.

 

THIS IS A TRUE STORY


In high school, my jr and sr years I took carpentry in the vocational portion of those years. One day, our teacher was talking about the "holy rollers" talkin' in tongues, and rolling in the floor, making fun of them. I went home that afternoon, and told mom about it. BIG MISTAKE. She looked at me, put her hand on her hip(if I remember correctly), started waving her head from side-to-side, and said, "They're not holy rollers, they're Holiness, and I was raised in an Holiness church!!" I could feel myself shrinking all the while. I did not know this, or I would not have shoved my foot in my mouth up to my knee. :laugh:

 

I knew you was bluffin'!!! :thumbs::laugh::wavey:

 

It is not a question. I have proven it unequivocally.

At least the VAST majority, if not 100%, of the translators were Calvinsts.

Anglicans had adopted the 39 articles which were OVERTLY Calvinistic decades earlier.
The only other group in the translation committe were Puritans.

EVERYBODY knows that they were staunch Calvinists with few exceptions.

 

There is a new, different from the 1990's Wesley study Bible out that is Arminian. Ditto Lutheran ones that are sort of between Cal. and Arm., as is the Ryrie.

New Oxford Annotated and New Interpreter's are not really either Calvinist or Arminian, but give both sides for you to consider.

 

Out of print but Reflecting God Study Bible (NIV) is available on the used book market at reasonable prices. It is basically the NIV Study Bible with the notes reworked to reflect Wesylan Methodist point of view.

 

Also clouding the issue is defining Arminian and Calvinist.

My classic and Wesleyan Arminian friends consider all who hold to OSAS as Calvinist.

My five point Calvinist friends hold all who consider limited atonement wrong as Arminian.

What, OP, are you specifically seeking?

 

Care to restate that? It is (Biblically) impossible for anyone to be saved that was not elect by God (even Arminians believe that). The difference is how the two groups see the basis of election, but neither view would affirm that any 'non-elects' get saved. Additionally, even Calvinists believe that all that choose Christ do so freely.

 

Really? I think some non-Calvinists here think that it is possible that some non-elect individuals can be saved. Chime in non-Cals.

 

If I understand you correctly, you're still off the mark. Regardless of view, God's election took place in Eternity Past. Election is done; God is not waiting to make any new elections today. According to one view, election may not be actually realized by the individual until after faith has been placed in Christ.

 

Uh, no............