Featured Is it one or the other?

I say NO. Either position could be wrong on any number of issues. Does being incorrect on any one pillar imply that all else about the position is also incorrect?

 

LOL, nice intro...

I would say on some theological positions it does. For example, either there is Limited Atonement or there is not. I don't see much wiggle room on that issue.

 

FTR Percho.

I think there is a high degree of probability that there are numerous things we ALL get wrong, despite whichever theological camp we claim.

 

No because by "default" you are only permitting that there are 2 options. In the early 1500s, the popular debate was between Luther's version against free will, and the Catholic Erasmus argument for free will. So does that mean by default anyone that disagreed with Luther (which many Calvinists are in that number) by default are Catholic?

Most of the Calvinists on here have never studied Jacobus Arminius, and have no idea what he REALLY taught. I have NUMEROUS disagreements with Arminius' doctrine, but James Arminius himself actually agreed with MUCH of John Calvin's writings, even though he also disagreed with much.

It is so funny that Calvinists claim to have knowledge of the debates between Calvin and Arminius when Arminius was about 4 years old when Calvin died. Yet Arminius went to a college that JOHN CALVIN STARTED and was trained in Calvinism. Calvin's predecessor, Theodore Beza even RECOMMENDED that Arminius continue to receive support for his continued education at Calvin's college.

It is the erroneous idea that only TWO options exist, when such views as were originally held by Augustine a thousand years prior to the distinction between "Arminianism vs Calvinism", that Calvinists make such a gross error in attributing any disagreement of Calvinism to that of an Arminian persuasion. Augustine was long ago killing "heretics" who disagreed with his version of predestination and election (of which he himself adopted from the Manicheans, a heretical Gnostic group that was heavily influenced by Buddhism) so the conflict about free will, election, and predestination goes back much further than Calvin and Arminius.

The real question should be is that if one disagrees with Augustine (from whom Calvin quoted over 400 times in his Institutes) does that make him ORTHODOX

 

...because we need more argument. :BangHead:

Okay, okay - I repent and apologize. This adds nothing to the "argument" requested in the OP.

 

You have completely changed the premise of Percho's question. If one believed in Erasmus' definition of free will that did not make one a Catholic that meant that they believed in Erasmus' definition of free will.

I can see why Calvinists on this board get frustrated with your argument style.

See? Now you're a mind reader.

 

I serve a church where the majority of our members are not Calvinists. I suspect, however, that all of them would reject the term Arminian, mainly because they hold to eternal security (preservation of the saints), and Arminians do not.

They would say that they are Baptists, like the majority of Baptists everywhere these days.

 

I have not changed the premise, I have challenged the premise. The question simply gives one hypothetical alternative to disagreeing with Calvinism. If such a premise is a valid one, then it is equally valid to point out other premise assumptions (i.e. Erasmus vs Luther) that would have the same results that no Calvinist would accept.

Calvinists can't have their cake and eat it, too. They can not impose a 2 view only system on everyone and conclude that if one does not believe A, then by default he MUST believe B when not only are there other options (what about "C"?), but as I said, the Calvinist themselves would challenge any premise that accused them of being Catholic if the option were given that disagreeing with Luther (A) means they are siding with Erasmus (B).

So you're a mind reader, too, into why Calvinists are frustrated with my "argument style"

See above.

When I have seen numerous Calvinists/Reformers/DoG et al, claim to have read the debates between Calvin and Arminius, knowing that the 2 never met, and that Arminius was a toddler when Calvin died, I can safely assert that those who have laid such a claim have not read the works of Jacobus Arminius. I don't have to be a mind reader to point out the obvious that Calvin never debated a 4 year old, and that a person can't claim to have read a debate that never existed.

 

Wrong again. You changed the premise, which is the right of the author of this thread to set parameters. You did not challenge it, but threw a monkey wrench into the subject of the thread. In the same paragraph, you say "no Calvinist would accept." That statement is an absolute that you cannot prove. Maybe better wording would be "most Calvinists would not accept."

A mind reader? For him to be a mind reader requires a mind in the person who is transmitting the thoughts.

The last paragraph is nothing but incoherent thoughts that have nothing to do with the premise of the thread, which you evidentially did not bother to read.

 

That is about the dumbest response I've seen from you to date.

Are you telling me that if I accused you of being a free-willer if you disagree with Luther that you would accept that? So you are claiming that you agree with Erasmus and Luther both? I knew you were depraved, but I didn't think it went THAT deep.

Not my fault that you don't have the comprehension of a wood screw to understand what I said. Perhaps I should start another thread to translate what I post into something easier for you to read because "evidentially" (whatever that means) deciphering philosophical logical consequences of an erroneous premise or axiom is above your pay grade.

Here, let me try to make one of these arguments simple for you.

1. Calvinist John Q states that he has read all of the debates between John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.
2. John Calvin died in 1564
3. Jacobus Arminius was born in 1560
4. Jacobus Arminius was 4 years old when John Calvin died.
5. Calvinist John Q could not have possibly read any debates between John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.

Now if you have an issue with figuring that out, I'm sure that there are a few elementary schools nearby that you can call and set up a meeting with a fifth grader to help explain that to you.

 

To get the thread back on track, I would say no. IMO, the Calvinist and Arminian positions are logical interpretations of the Bible for reasonable men and women considering limits on the human mind. Also, even within our understanding, there could be a third or fourth position.

From an eternal perspective, which we cannot define, the inner workings of the mind of the Lord, where free will and Sovereignty meet in all aspects of life are very deep, way beyond the limits of our finite minds. Whatever the mechanism is, it is dynamic.

 

You do not have the moral authority to call anyone dumb or dishonest.

 

This shows just how stupid you really are. Critique my post and then stole my logic! You're welcome.

 

I stand by my statement, you have no moral authority. What you left out of your posts is what God thinks about it. The third and fourth positions, if there are any, are a product of God, not Luther or the other dead theologians you depend on.

You do not know the difference between a Calvinist, non-Calvinist, Arminian, a person who believes in Doctrines of Grace, or any shade between. You constantly demean groups you do not agree with and lump two or more categories into one, when you do not even understand the definitions.

There is no way that a person with a doctorate produces posts like yours. No way on earth.

 

Why don't you get in a time machine and set it for Geneva 1558 and dress up as Michael Servetus?