Tell the Truth by Will Metzger DISCUSSION

[JonC]

He holds that Jesus died for all sinners, and that God has provided thru his death the means for any and all whosoever wants to come to Christ shall come to get saved...

How is that not classic Arminian theology?

How is it Arminian (in and of itself)?

I think that most would recognize Amyraldianism as being within Calvinism, even if many would see it as an error within Calvinism. They believe Christ died for the sins of all men, to make salvation (hypothetically) a possibility. This view within orthodox Calvinism was not necessarily restricted to Amyraldianism. Some of the theologians who signed the Canons of Dort believed in a universal Atonement (e.g., John Davenant and George Carleton, for example).

Another interesting note is that classical Calvinism, strong Calvinism, and Arminianism all hold that Christ did die to secure the salvation of the elect and that God foreknew, from eternity, exactly who the elect would be. When you get into various views of the Atonement you'll find that much of the debate exists between those who think that the Atonement was one dimensional (the atonement only affected one group and only served one purpose in only one way) and those who think that the Atonement was more significant on a broader scale (that the Cross held implications for all of creation, although not necessarily the same implications).

There are differences in understanding about how God elects. But to hold to sovereign election does not necessarily make one a Calvinist (although he'd be a non-Arminian). To hold that God designed salvation to incorporate "free-will" does not necessarily make one an Arminian (although he'd be a non-Calvinist).

What I have been trying to get you to understand is that Arminianism is not simply a “rejection of limited atonement.” It's not simply an issue of free-will. It's not as simple and clean cut as you would make it out to be.

BTW, I believe that Jesus died for the sins of all men (of the whole world) and that through the Atonement God has provided the means of salvation to all men (as Calvin said…indiscriminately). I believe that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Yet my view excludes any possibility of being Arminian. We may have our differences, but if you want to respond please take the time to understand what you are speaking of (especially when what you are speaking of is someone else’s beliefs).

 

[Van]

I didn’t understand the author to be speaking of Arminianism as being the “man centered” category. If this is what he was implying, then certainly he is in error. Looking down the columns, Arminian doctrine would fit well in the “God centered” section. I just took the author (although he is certainly a Calvinist) as cautioning against a partial gospel.

Yes, I can see how you gave Metzger the benefit of the doubt. Others read it the way I read it. Check out this link which understands Metzger to be referring to Arminianism:

http://storage.cloversites.com/trinitybaptistchurch11/documents/Evangelism Issues - Conner.pdf

 

[evangelist6589]

Yes, I can see how you gave Metzger the benefit of the doubt. Others read it the way I read it. Check out this link which understands Metzger to be referring to Arminianism:



http://storage.cloversites.com/trinitybaptistchurch11/documents/Evangelism Issues - Conner.pdf

Semi-Pelegainism is man centered theology. Classical arminian theology such as tracts by Chic Tracts are classical.

 

[Van]

Semi-Pelegainism is a man-centered smear invented by Calvinists to disparage alternate views. Anytime you see "semi-pelegainism" or "man-centered gospel" you are reading Calvinist screed.

The point of Table 1 in Will Metzger's "Tell the Truth" is to smear views that differ from Calvinism. It mis-characterizes the views of others, failing to "tell the truth."

 

[Yeshua1]

How is it Arminian (in and of itself)?

I think that most would recognize Amyraldianism as being within Calvinism, even if many would see it as an error within Calvinism. They believe Christ died for the sins of all men, to make salvation (hypothetically) a possibility. This view within orthodox Calvinism was not necessarily restricted to Amyraldianism. Some of the theologians who signed the Canons of Dort believed in a universal Atonement (e.g., John Davenant and George Carleton, for example).

Another interesting note is that classical Calvinism, strong Calvinism, and Arminianism all hold that Christ did die to secure the salvation of the elect and that God foreknew, from eternity, exactly who the elect would be. When you get into various views of the Atonement you'll find that much of the debate exists between those who think that the Atonement was one dimensional (the atonement only affected one group and only served one purpose in only one way) and those who think that the Atonement was more significant on a broader scale (that the Cross held implications for all of creation, although not necessarily the same implications).

There are differences in understanding about how God elects. But to hold to sovereign election does not necessarily make one a Calvinist (although he'd be a non-Arminian). To hold that God designed salvation to incorporate "free-will" does not necessarily make one an Arminian (although he'd be a non-Calvinist).

What I have been trying to get you to understand is that Arminianism is not simply a “rejection of limited atonement.” It's not simply an issue of free-will. It's not as simple and clean cut as you would make it out to be.

BTW, I believe that Jesus died for the sins of all men (of the whole world) and that through the Atonement God has provided the means of salvation to all men (as Calvin said…indiscriminately). I believe that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Yet my view excludes any possibility of being Arminian. We may have our differences, but if you want to respond please take the time to understand what you are speaking of (especially when what you are speaking of is someone else’s beliefs).

Classical Arminian theology holds that God intended and had jesus die for the sins of all sinners, and that he provided common grace towards all sinners, as each and every one has the means to come to Jesus through that grace work of God...

So if one says Jesus died for all, and that God provided real means to really save all sinners, just up to us to freely choose, how is that NOT arminian theology?

 

[JonC]

oops....see below

 

[JonC]

Classical Arminian theology holds that God intended and had jesus die for the sins of all sinners, and that he provided common grace towards all sinners, as each and every one has the means to come to Jesus through that grace work of God...
So if one says Jesus died for all, and that God provided real means to really save all sinners, just up to us to freely choose, how is that NOT arminian theology?

Just because they have similar views does not mean he is Arminian. That’s all I mean. Many Calvinists, now and through history, believed that the Atonement was for the sins of mankind (they viewed the election to be in God’s giving, or drawing). They held a strong Trinitarian view of God’s redemptive plan. Obviously just thinking that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of all men is not an Arminian distinctive. So let’s look at the freely choose part.

Your error is that you gloss over “freely choose.” One does not have to be Arminian to think that men freely choose salvation. I think that you mean to say that Geisler holds to Molinism (as Geisler himself references middle knowledge to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with free-will). While not incompatible (IMHO) with Arminianism, just holding this view does not one an Arminian make.

 

[Yeshua1]

Semi-Pelegainism is a man-centered smear invented by Calvinists to disparage alternate views. Anytime you see "semi-pelegainism" or "man-centered gospel" you are reading Calvinist screed.

The point of Table 1 in Will Metzger's "Tell the Truth" is to smear views that differ from Calvinism. It mis-characterizes the views of others, failing to "tell the truth."

No, rather its just saying thatposition is that we would be co operating with God in getting us saved!

 

[Yeshua1]

Just because they have similar views does not mean he is Arminian. That’s all I mean. Many Calvinists, now and through history, believed that the Atonement was for the sins of mankind (they viewed the election to be in God’s giving, or drawing). They held a strong Trinitarian view of God’s redemptive plan. Obviously just thinking that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of all men is not an Arminian distinctive. So let’s look at the freely choose part.

Your error is that you gloss over “freely choose.” One does not have to be Arminian to think that men freely choose salvation. I think that you mean to say that Geisler holds to Molinism (as Geisler himself references middle knowledge to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with free-will). While not incompatible (IMHO) with Arminianism, just holding this view does not one an Arminian make.

Dr Geisler asserts and affirms that he is arminian in his theology, so why are we so against assigning tht belief system unto him?
He belongs to the evangelical Arminian team, correct?

 

[JonC]

Dr Geisler asserts and affirms that he is arminian in his theology, so why are we so against assigning tht belief system unto him?

Because he denies being Arminian and demonstrates where his views differ from Arminianism.

BUT...perhaps I've been reading older materials (in what I was reading he claimed moderate Calvinism) and people do change. Please reference where he asserts and affirms that his is Arminian.

 

[Rippon]

BTW, I believe that Jesus died for the sins of all men (of the whole world) and that through the Atonement God has provided the means of salvation to all men (as Calvin said…indiscriminately).

John Calvin held to an indiscriminate call --not a universal provision. He believed that people of all classifications are among ther elect for whom Christ died.

I believe that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Yet my view excludes any possibility of being Arminian.

Your two sentences are contradictory.

 

[JonC]

John Calvin held to an indiscriminate call --not a universal provision. He believed that people of all classifications are among ther elect for whom Christ died.

Your two sentences are contradictory.

Read More Calvin.

My sentences are not contradictory at all. My views exclude Arminism at its foundation. But I do believe Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of man. What issue do you have with that?

 

[Yeshua1]

Because he denies being Arminian and demonstrates where his views differ from Arminianism.

BUT...perhaps I've been reading older materials (in what I was reading he claimed moderate Calvinism) and people do change. Please reference where he asserts and affirms that his is Arminian.

See what you think!

evangelicalarminians.org/norman-geisler-entry...the-baker...

 

[JonC]

See what you think!

evangelicalarminians.org/norman-geisler-entry...the-baker...

I think that the site provided an article of Geisler's from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics titled "Free Will." The article neither affirms nor denies Arminianism, although I doubt Arminians would have much issue with Geisler's view regarding free-will. Many might object to his ideas regarding his ideas of how God elects, but I think that most would be OK with his view of free will. In other words, I think that Geisler has a lot in common with Arminians...probably more than he does with Calvinists. But that doesn't mean that he accepts that view (especially when he goes to the trouble to actually explain why he rejects Arminianism). I do not think, however, that he is a moderate Calvinist (as he puts it).

https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?title=Free_Will

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that the site provided an article of Geisler's from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics titled "Free Will." The article neither affirms nor denies Arminianism, although I doubt Arminians would have much issue with Geisler's view regarding free-will. Many might object to his ideas regarding his ideas of how God elects, but I think that most would be OK with his view of free will. In other words, I think that Geisler has a lot in common with Arminians...probably more than he does with Calvinists. But that doesn't mean that he accepts that view (especially when he goes to the trouble to actually explain why he rejects Arminianism). I do not think, however, that he is a moderate Calvinist (as he puts it).

https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?title=Free_Will

Wpuld see him as being an Evagelical Arminian..

 

[JonC]

Wpuld see him as being an Evagelical Arminian..

No, I wouldn't see him as Arminian at all. I may disagree with his conclusions, but I don't see him as Arminian.