Featured Perishing without having ever heard the gospel they end up in....

What you believe, that things such as the Fall are "byproducts that God, as well as each of us, wishes had not occurred" is not Arminianian belief. Arminianism teaches that God is truly omniscient and all things that occur are "preordained" to occur by God (they do not happen outside of God's plan).

Take, for example, the Fall. Calvinism says that God "decreed" that the fall should occur. Arminianism teaches that God, knowing that the Fall would occur, ordained that it would occur. Both view the Fall within the overall content of God's eternal plan (they disagree on its ultimate source, but it's immediate source is God as Creator). You viewed the "ordain" vs. "decree" as a "distinction without a difference". Your view is not Arminian here, brother. It is open theistic on this topic (AGAIN, not that you are an Open Theistic, but that your position here falls into that category of thought).

 

You are welcome.

I've missed conversations I tried to follow (sometimes this has been a blessing to me, sometimes to others ). I do not know how that function works (except it is not consistent). Tapatalk seems to be even more difficult, if you use that app.

 

If you are saying, now, that you agree God ordained the Fall and it occurred as God has planned it would occur (Arminianism) then our disagreement is not as great as you have argued. But throughout you have argued against that view (when I presented you fought tooth and nail that it was wrong). Make up your mind, brother. Get off the fence.

 

Again, you are misunderstanding my comment. Arminianism teaches that God preordined all that has occured. Calvinism teaches that God has predestined all that has occured. You call this a "distinction without a difference". I recommended a few books by open theists because this is where a portion of your view leaned. But insofar as Arminianism, my favorite is "Grace Faith & Free Will" by Robert Pricilli. I thought his arguments were well made (and logical), even though I ultimately disagree:
https://books.google.com/books?id=t...RAhXHJiYKHRWnBb4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

No, that was my position for decades. You need to read the Articles before assuming.

 

Arminius died a Calvinist and I do not believe in infant baptism. (You'd run into the same thing you tried to do by consulting John Calvin to define "Calvinism") .

Arminianism is not exactly defined by James Arminius (but he was just as much a scholar as was Calvin...I do not understand why he is so often ignored). At his death, there were people (even Calvinists) who believed that Arminius' teachings did not substantiate enough of a difference to constitute a departure from Calvinism. Just like our use of Calvinism goes back to the Canons of Dort, Arminianism goes back to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance. Ultimately it branched out into various forms.

If you are Arminian then we disagree on several issues, not only by what I affirm of Calvinism but also by what I reject (your belief is of Calvinistic trajectory, so we would also disagree when it comes to theories of the atonement).

 

If you would like, start another thread. As you noted, this is one is about to close and I don't think it will be here long enough to discuss the topic. I suspect it has about an hour left.

I keep thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail...shall we consult the book of armaments?

 

This thread is closed.