Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction!

Have you noticed how much the arminians appeal to logic ... about how God can't be fair when he chooses only some, about how God can't be loving when he chooses only some, about how the sovereign God must be the author of sin in spite of hte fact that Scripture clearly says otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]Yup. Arminian theology has some of the same problems with rationalism. That’s why I’m not an “arminian” either. If I was going to categorize myself as something other than a “biblicist”, I would say that I have a lot of affinity to what is lately being calling “Open Theism”. Of course, I was an “open theist” long before the term was coined and I am not a disciple of any of the current leading proponents of the view.

 

Arminianism happens to turn the corner away from Calvinism and toward a more Biblical interpretation of Scripture. Correct interpretation blends the fact of God's sovereign will in offering the Gospel to all human beings, [I John 2:2] and human response to either receive or neglect the Gospel. [John 1:12]

Calvinism portrays an automated and Dictatorial kind of Divine Being first trumpeted by Father Augustine and later bugled by John Calvin. The 'ism' is introduced under the guise of Sovereignty with a total disregard for human response to the proffered Gospel.

 

Baptistbeliever; since you're an open theist let's see if you agree with the following: Open theists often identify themselves specifically as Arminians(although as has been seen,they are more Socinian on this matter). But they believe that traditional Arminianism has not been consistent enough with its view of libertarian freedom. In traditional Arminianism,although God does not predetermine man's free choices,He does know them all in advance,for He knows the future exhaustively. The open theist ask,quite properly,how God can foreknoe human free choices without foreordaining them. If human free choices are knowable in advance,they must somehow be settled in advance. And that is what libertarianism denies.Open theists,then,agree with Calvinists that divine foreknowledge entails divine foreordination,and therefore that traditioal Arminianism is inadequate. But rather than accept the Calvinist doctrine of foreordination, they reject both divine foreordination and divine foreknowledge. So, the question is not whether open theism is fresh or new or otherwise appealing but rather whether it is Biblical. And as a Calvinist,I reject both traditional Arminianism and Open theism. Of the two,the former is more Biblical and the latter more logically consistent.Arminianism is better,since it is better to be inconsistently scriptural than to achieve consistency with an error. But it is evident that we can be satisfied with neither position.

 

God has already stated his will, and 2000 years ago made the way for his will to be carried out. It is now up to man to abide by the will of God or be cast into the lake of fire. The choice is ours.

 

Hi Everyone;
Have you ever noticed how all Calvinist seem to think they are somehow more knowledgeable than the lowly Arminians.

I'm only Arminian in there minds because all who oppose Calvinism are Arminians and they can't figure out how else to refer to me. How ignorant huh?

I'm a real live born again Christian and this gets them more than Arminianus ever did. They can't stand Arminians or anyone who would oppose them simply because others believe the truth. The very fact that we are bold enough to seek the Lord destroys there doctrine of Total depravity. Just blows them away. Then they say we are drawn because we are elected, just misguided. How can someone come to the Lord and be misguided. Just where is the misguidance in that?.
Romanbear

 

Ha! I loved that movie!

Ok huck, let's go.

In the last month or so that I've been on this board I've converted one Calvinist, drove off another and I'm still waiting for our esteemed moderator to get back to me on another post. Here is one argument I would like to hear some kind of crediable response to:

There are three groups of people in scripture:

1. Hardened Israel: Jews who have been hardened because of their rebellion to God.

2. The Remnant: Jews who were chosen by God not to receive the hardening, so that God’s purpose of redemption would be fulfilled through them. The Apostles are among this group and were divinely chosen for a unique purpose.

3. Gentiles: A sinful people who have not been hardened like the Israelites, because they have never been presented entrance into Covenant and rejected it like the Israelites had done for generations. They, unlike Hardened Israel, will listen. (Acts 28:28) And they, unlike Harden Israel, have the ability to respond to the genuine call of the gospel. (Matt. 21:43)

Question: What does Calvinism’s Total Inability teach about man?
Answer: That man is so sinful they are unable to see, hear, understand or receive the things of God. Right?

That’s the same definition as “hardening” in scripture: Look at these verses: Romans 10 and 11; Acts 28:25-28; John 12:37-41; Matt. 21:42-43 (to name a few)
I'll quote a short one for you to read:

Mark 4:10-12:
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, 'The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.'"

Total Inability seems to be a lot like Hardening! No one will be hardened until he has refused the things of God, as the Israelites had done for generations. The Gentiles had never been invited into covenant and the scripture clearly teaches that Israel (except the Remnant) are the only ones who receive this Hardening and it indicates that man without this hardening would have the ability to hear, see, understand and turn to God for healing.

Notice what this passage says! "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven" In other words, if not for the active hardening of God they "might turn and be forgiven," therefore those who are not being hardened (the Remnant and the Gentiles) can turn and be forgiven.

Here is a question for all of you Calvinists: Why would God need to "harden" Israel if, according to your beliefs, they were already “Totally Hardened” by the fall?

And what is the difference between "hardening" and "total inability?"

Calvinism doesn't make sense in light of God's clear teaching on the Hardening of Israel!

If "Total Inability" crumbles the whole Calvinistic system of Soteriology comes tumbling down with it.

TIMBERRRRRRRRRR!!!

 

I do not care for the reference to Socinian theology since they are patently heretical. (Unless I have misunderstood your reference!)

I do not consider myself “Arminian” since I do not hold to many of the core views of Arminianism. If I had to choose between Arminianism and Calvinism, I am much more closely Calvinistic in regard to most of the five points.

Total Depravity: Believe that all persons are sinners and in desperate need of redemption, but the “dead in sins” is overemphasized by Calvinists. Desperately grabbing for a lifeline thrown to you by God who is also speaking to you, giving you directions, and shining a light for you to see the lifeline is hardly working for salvation.
Unconditional Election: Certainly God does not look for virtue when He calls people to decision.
Limited Atonement: I reject this point and embrace general atonement, although no one can come to the Father unless they are drawn. I believe God will extend a call at least once to all people, but there is no guarantee you will be called again if you reject the initial calling.
Irresistible Grace: I also reject this point. While God draws us, we certainly have the ability to resist His drawing. God will not override our freedom of choice (God has given us this freedom, BTW)
Perseverance of the Saints: Those who come to Christ are transformed into a new creature. They will not fall away because they have been changed. Furthermore, God will not let them escape His loving grasp.

Not sure what point you are making here.

In my understanding, our existence (and our freedom) takes place in a God-given context of choices and societal structures. My freedom is limited by the possible choices within my context. On the other hand, I am completely free to embrace or reject Christ when God gives the opportunity of faith.

Yes. That’s the way I understand classic Arminianism.

Not necessarily.

God can know all possible options and the inclinations of His free creatures and therefore can have a fairly accurate view of the future. Furthermore, God is active in human affairs and in creation and is certainly wise enough to create circumstances that motivate His free creatures to make choices according to self-interest/self-survival. Furthermore, God is in full communication and fellowship with many of His followers, and His followers can make choices according to revealed knowledge that influence others in the best possible way for God’s plan.

The way many Calvinist thinkers seem to think, God does not need to be living and active in human affairs since everything is already settled – they seem to understand sovereignty in terms of a dictatorship or a controlled society. Open Theists believe in a God who is extremely active in human affairs and yet is also sovereign over all even though He provides zones of freedom for humankind. Classic Arminians seem to overemphasize freedom at the expense of a biblical understanding of a God who is sovereign over creation. (Certainly these are all caricatures of more nuanced perspectives, but I think they generally hold true.)

Of course, Open theists see “libertarianism” as the biblical doctrine of free will – not an attack on God’s sovereignty.

Some do and some do not. I do not. (See preceding discussion of this point.)

I think your assessment is faulty because of the Calvinist terminology you are using.

Regarding “divine foreordination”, I believe God has a broad will for humanity and that will shall be accomplished, with or without my help. I can reject being part of the Kingdom if I desire, but I cannot frustrate the ultimate purposes of the Divine will.

Regarding “divine foreknowledge”, I do not know how much foreknowledge God has or how something like that would work. It is well beyond my finite mind and involves questions regarding the nature of time and the nature of God where we do not have enough information to make the call. On the other hand, God knows everything that can be known and also understanding the meaning, the motivation, and the consequences of everything He knows.

YES! Open theism is not “fresh” with me because it is the view that has developed in me front my first days as a believer reading the Bible cover to cover and trying to understand its message. I’ve only discovered formal statements of “Open Theism” within the last couple of years when reading Calvinist polemics against the “dangerous heresy”.

As far as being “appealing” goes, I really don’t find it appealing – I find it biblical. I’ve studied Calvinism on several occasions and can’t get beyond some fundamental flaws, and classic Arminianism has no appeal to me since it (in my opinion of course) is unbiblical in many ways.

The real issue, as you so concisely stated, is whether or not Open Theism (or Calvinism and Arminianism for that matter) is biblical.

Maybe you should rethink Open Theism since you seems to have some views of Open Theism that are not consistent with views that I and other people who are sympathetic to Open Theism hold.

Regarding being “logically consistent”, I agree that Calvinism is more “logically consistent” since it is a system that is guided by logical consistency. In my opinion, Open Theism is only more logically consistent than Arminianism, but it is not be design but instead by adherence to many of the biblical truths that Calvinists embrace.

If you are inconsistently scriptural, you are also in error. In my experience, Open Theism is consistently scriptural, but tries not to say too much about matters that are not settled by scripture. The Open Theists I know are very careful about systematizing a theological system in an area that is largely a mystery (free will, foreknowledge, election, etc.). In my view, Calvinism is also inconsistently scriptural and also in error.

What’s this “we” stuff?

I am very satisfied and comfortable with Open Theism. It seems to be consistent with the Bible (that’s where my view developed – not from the flurry of books and articles over the last few years) and with Christian faith and practice. But it is not consistent with Calvinism or classic Arminianism.

 

Ha! I loved that movie!

Ok huck, let's go.</font>[/QUOTE]Uh OH! It's gonna be a shoot out.

I haven't been on this board long, but from what I've read so far....my money is on Bill! Go get 'em!

 

Baptist Believer; according to Richard Rice and John Sanders the following is their view of Open theism,which they are prominent within the movement. 1.Love is God's most important quality 2.Love is not only care and commitment,but also being sensitive and responsive 3.Creatures exert an influence on God 4.God's will is not the ultimate explanation of everything. History is the combined result of what God and His creatures decide to do. 5.God does not know everything timelessly,but learns from events as they take place. 6.So God is dependent on the world in some ways. 7.Human beings are free in the libertarian sense. Is this what you adhere to? Michael

 

ARMINIANISM - Jacob Arminius, right of the heals of Pelegrius. Arminianism was a new belief that was being spread in the 1600s. The reformers where concerned about what he was preaching. So they gathered a council of 200 some odd theologians. They spent about 150 days studying this. They then declared Arminianism to be a heresy. Jacob Arminianus had 5 points, so the council developed 5 correct points, which where named after John Calvin. Prior to this, 'calvinism' was assumed with 'evangelical Christianity'

 

I strongly disagree! Grace is the single greatest attribute of God. Without Grace the other attributes of God are worthless to man. Grace is the attribute of God that constrains his Justice.

 

Yelsew;I just posted what the men in leadership positions of open theism movement are proclaiming as their beliefs.If you are an open theist then I suggest that if you disagree with them then you should by all means contact them.

 

Yes, they are prominent in the movement, but their opinions are not necessarily the opinions of other Open Theists.

I don't care for the categorization of God's character and qualities (trying to reduce God to a specific trait reduces the biblical portrait of God). However, I would agree that the way we primarily experience God in this age is characterized by love as the defining quality of His character. But by saying I believe that God is love, doesn't mean I don't believe that God is holy. In fact, I believe love and holiness are intimately connected.

Absolutely. Love, by its very nature, is relational. God not only cares for us and is committed to us, but God makes Himself vulnerable to us (what we do makes a difference to Him) and He responds to our reaction to Him.

Yes. We have an influence on God because God has chosen to be in a love relationship with us. It is not because of our power or will, but a manifestation of God's choice toward His creation. If we don't believe this, then why are we praying?

Yes. When people sin, God is not at fault. The sins of others affect us. Also, the creation itself is fallen, so bad things happen in nature. I think God intervenes more often than we can recognize, but obviously God also allows "bad" things to happen in the world.

I think many Open Theists are weak in this area.

I do not know how much God knows, but I believe God knows everything that can be known. God knows every possibility and the intentions and actions of all of creation. God also knows the tendencies of each of His creatures and can accurately predict actions.

Furthermore, God is involved in creation and exerts His will upon the world (generally without overwhelming the free choices of His creatures) through the actions of His followers, control of the elements of creation, and His influence over the "chances" of history and current events.

It would take a while to explain all the ins and outs of what I believe about this, but that's a starting place.

Yes, because He has chosen to be dependent.

Again, I still don't know that you mean by "in the libertarian sense"... I believe human beings exert free will within the context of options that are available to them. God does not overwhelm a person's freedom of choice. God does not do it because God has chosen to allow this freedom.

No. I adhere to the Bible. But I do have quite a bit of sympathy for these points. They are an enormous oversimplification and each point should be explored and discussed, but the same can be said for any other system including Calvinism and Arminianism.

 

I strongly disagree! Grace is the single greatest attribute of God. Without Grace the other attributes of God are worthless to man. Grace is the attribute of God that constrains his Justice. </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong, HOLINESS is God's greatest attribute.

"holy, holy, holy!"
three times

God is love
God is Grace
God is Justice
But Gos is HOLY HOLY HOLY

 

I strongly disagree! Grace is the single greatest attribute of God. Without Grace the other attributes of God are worthless to man.</font>[/QUOTE]Don't you think that grace is a manifestation of God's love?

I hardly think that God is an emotionally conflicted as many preachers and theologians portray Him.

 

Whoever wrote the post on 3/4/ at 3:58 p.m. in bold type said it perfectly.

God's atonement is all inclusive surrounding every soul with His Divine love. All the sinner has to do is open his life to Jesus and His free grace. [John 3:16] Thanks be to God! Christ's will bowed to His physical death; now the sinner's will must bow to the Triune God who always draws [Revelation 22:17] the lost to His promised hope of eternal life.

 

I must say that Val Kilmer makes a much better huckleberry. At least he showed up to the gun fight.

Where's my huckleberry?

 

Rufus, we've already agreed with you about this statement and when I make an argument you tell me that my method of interpretation is different than yours and you tell Baptist Believer that he relies to much on human logic, so we have learned from you that you won't debate the scripture and you won't debate human logic, good luck finding a debate.

Speaking of contradictions let's go back to your illustration about the signs that have the "everyone" and "whosoever" and "The Spirit say come" verses on the outside of the house that leads people to believe that they must choose Christ. And then once someone goes inside they find the signs on the inside of the house that corrects the contradictory signs on the outside of the house. Now that is a belief system based on contradictions.

You said: "Logically, if a system contains a CONTRADICTION it is FALSE."

Thanks for proving Calvinism false for us.

 

Hi Rufus;
A quote from you;
-------------------------------------------------

ARMINIANISM TODAY -- Coming from humanistic Pelagianism instead of from the Scriptures, Arminianism bases salvation upon the will of fallen man. It is an anti-sovereignty, anti-security, anti-dispensational, anti-grace, pro-works religion.
-------------------------------------------------

My Reply;
Calvinist assume this, but it is not true.

Calvinist also assume that all who oppose Calvinism are Arminians. Not true again. I admit I believe that I'm saved because God made me an offer and I freely took that offer.

God does not loose His Sovereignity by giving me a choice. No more than The USA loose's it's Sovereignty over offering other nations to be under our protection.

Your statement here was not well thought out. God offering us a Choice does not hinder security or dispensations.It in fact increases Grace. No where no how do I believe in works for anything. I do works because I love my Lord. I'm willing to be used by Him. Aren't you?

Believeing and accepting is not works. Responding to the Draw of the Holy Spirit is not works.

It's Calvinism that makes a mockery of God turning Him into a tyrant one who sends people to hell because it pleases him. Christ said He is not willing that any should perish. Calvinism contradicts God and says He murders there souls because it's His good pleasure.

Romanbear