Arminian God cruel and arbitrary

[GeneMBridges]

Respectfully, Tony, no...


Look at the things Dr. Hunt says about Spurgeon from his own website. He says that Spurgeon struggled with giving in to hyperCalvinism and all sorts of things. He never, ever, retracts any of the spurious things that Dr. White pointed out. He wrote a book with White, but the challenge Dr. White issued was to come on his own show and debate him, which he has yet to do. Hunt says that he does not know Greek and has been publicly documented as having said so. He arrives at translation of Acts 13:38 that are in agreement with the Jehovah's Witness' translation. Hunt is on the same level as Riplinger and Ruckman, Tony (and we all those two all too well from our interaction with michelle and others in the versions forum). His greatest supporters these days are from KJVOnlyists like David Cloud. Hunt has had two years to correct the misrepresentations in his book from which Ray quotes and has yet to do so, and, when he does address the issues in his open letter, he seems to continue to make the same errors he made in that book and / or he only digs himself further into the ground. It is one thing to be ignorant, but Hunt offers no real exegesis, does not account for Greek syntax and grammar on multiple occasions, misquotes primary sources either purposefully or mistakenly (nobody is really sure), and a whole host of other fundamental errors that wouldn't get past a freshman English professor in any college, much less a seminary professor.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Gene M. Bridges,

'If it is conditional on faith as you say, Ray, then how did He chose Jacob over Esau before they were even born and had ever done anything good or evil?'

You have made a strategic mistake and exegetical miscalculation that every Calvinist fall into with their theory. According to Dr. Merrill C. Tenney both Jacob and Esau entered Heaven because as he says, 'Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father.' [Hebrews 11:20] in his volume "Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary. p 398. And also study p. 258. 'Long after his death (Esau) the Lord declared he had loved Jacob and hated Esau (Malachi 1:2-3) The Apostle Paul used this passage to illustrate how God carries out His purposes [Romans 9:10-13]'

Calvinism has forever refused to admit that Esau is number among the heroes of the Christian faith. [Hebrews 11:20] Sometime study "Jephthae" [Hebrews 11:32e] and you will see that he was a sinning saint even to the point of murder and yet God declares him to be listed among the saints of God of the former covenant. [Hebrews 8:6] King David also was not always the Psalmist poet who wrote to the glory of God; don't forget he had a man murdered and then committed adultery with his wife. [Hebrews 11:32f]

God purpose was absolutely not to damn Esau, but to prefer and make Jacob the person whose lineage would lead to the son of promise, our Lord. There were reasons for Jesus preferring Jacob over Esau which is a further and deeper subject. But, this will get you on the highway of truth.

Esau was a more Godly man than his repeatedly, deceiving brother, which probably will mean nothing to a Calvinistic mind and way of thinking. Some have interpreted the word, 'hated' in the Greek to mean, to love less.

I have answered your question in your post. Now, please, explain to us what Isaac was doing explaining to Jacob and Esau about future things and eternal life, if Esau was not ever going to enter Heaven?

Romans chapter nine in fact weakens the Calvinistic theory of Unconditional Election rather than serving as a springboard into Calvinistic waters and alleged truth.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Gene M. Bridges,

David Hunt uses many Calvinistic writers of books to document the fact, for one, that Calvin merely systematized the findings of Augustine with his diluted Christian theology because St. Augustine was consumed with the ideas of pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and their philosophical and dehumanized God who was devoid of love and human concern.

Calvinists had to tell many falsehoods or muddy the water, because he completely destroys Calvinism with its wretched doctrines which fly in the face of a holy God and His attributes of love, mercy and Divine justice.

Again, at the close of each chapter he makes full and clear documentation of his sources coming from other theological books. An amazing book by an exceptional man of God.

 

[Paul33]

And so the challenge of this thread goes unanswered.

I find it interesting that no Arminian has yet to answer the problem posed, namely, that God is unfair and unjust because millions, if not billions, of people will never hear the gospel message, and therefore not have an opportunity to accept the gospel message. What could be more unloving and arbitrary than that?

You must hear the gospel so that you can respond in faith and be saved! But then God doesn't give everyone that opportunity!

Why can't any Arminians answer this problem?

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Gene M. Bridges,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 'If it is conditional on faith as you say, Ray, then how did He chose Jacob over Esau before they were even born and had ever done anything good or evil?'

You have made a strategic mistake and exegetical miscalculation that every Calvinist fall into with their theory. According to Dr. Merrill C. Tenney both Jacob and Esau entered Heaven because as he says, 'Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father.' [Hebrews 11:20] in his volume "Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary. p 398. And also study p. 258. 'Long after his death (Esau) the Lord declared he had loved Jacob and hated Esau (Malachi 1:2-3) The Apostle Paul used this passage to illustrate how God carries out His purposes [Romans 9:10-13]'

Calvinism has forever refused to admit that Esau is number among the heroes of the Christian faith. [Hebrews 11:20] Sometime study "Jephthae" [Hebrews 11:32e] and you will see that he was a sinning saint even to the point of murder and yet God declares him to be listed among the saints of God of the former covenant. [Hebrews 8:6] King David also was not always the Psalmist poet who wrote to the glory of God; don't forget he had a man murdered and then committed adultery with his wife. [Hebrews 11:32f]

God purpose was absolutely not to damn Esau, but to prefer and make Jacob the person whose lineage would lead to the son of promise, our Lord. There were reasons for Jesus preferring Jacob over Esau which is a further and deeper subject. But, this will get you on the highway of truth.

Esau was a more Godly man than his repeatedly, deceiving brother, which probably will mean nothing to a Calvinistic mind and way of thinking. Some have interpreted the word, 'hated' in the Greek to mean, to love less.

I have answered your question in your post. Now, please, explain to us what Isaac was doing explaining to Jacob and Esau about future things and eternal life, if Esau was not ever going to enter Heaven?

Romans chapter nine in fact weakens the Calvinistic theory of Unconditional Election rather than serving as a springboard into Calvinistic waters and alleged truth.

Berrian, Th.D. </font>[/QUOTE]Your question misrepresents what Calvinists teach about Jacob and Esau, Ray. Calvinists do not teach that the election of Jacob over Esau has any thing to do with their own individual salvation. Your question is a straw man, a caricature, an outright misrepresentation of the content of what we teach.

It is given by Paul as an illustration of the way that God elects individuals. God elects individuals not based on intrinsic qualities. This is what unconditional election means, Ray. This passage simply shows that God elects individuals as well as groups, and Paul goes on to explain how this works in relationship to our individual situation today.

You also fall into the fundamental error of quoting others to say that God elects nations and not individuals and that if you say that they were chosen based on their faith YOU DEFY THE TEXT OF BOTH GENESIS AND MALACHI. (You do realize of course that Malachi is getting his reference from Genesis too, don't you?). The text says that they were chosen BEFORE THEY WERE BORN, BEFORE EITHER OF THEM HAD DONE ANYTHING RIGHT OR WRONG/GOOD OR BAD. God's choice was purposeful, but not confined to the election of nations. In fact, the Greek says it couldn't be, as the word used is "skeuos," which means instruments or utensils, but whenever it appears with reference to persons, it is always refers to individuals. It was not based on foreseen faith in them, because of verse 11. If it was based on that, the text would say so. To say it does is simply an assumption not supported by the text, and, in fact refuted by v.11.

If you look at verse 11, it says "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I love, But Esau I hated.’ Not only that, you sit there and say that God choses based on foreseen faith and then accuse Calvinism of being somehow deterministic, well, then you contradict yourself, Ray, because if that is true, Ray, then the faith foreseen is no less fixed in its reality than if God arranged for it himself. At least an Open Theist is consistent.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Gene M. Bridges,

David Hunt uses many Calvinistic writers of books to document the fact, for one, that Calvin merely systematized the findings of Augustine with his diluted Christian theology because St. Augustine was consumed with the ideas of pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and their philosophical and dehumanized God who was devoid of love and human concern.

Calvinists had to tell many falsehoods or muddy the water, because he completely destroys Calvinism with its wretched doctrines which fly in the face of a holy God and His attributes of love, mercy and Divine justice.

Again, at the close of each chapter he makes full and clear documentation of his sources coming from other theological books. An amazing book by an exceptional man of God.

Ray, you need to go and look at Dr. White's critique of that book. You also need to go back and check the sources Hunt uses. You really, really know you need to do that. He grossly misrepresents what a great many of these persons have actually said and written, and he does so multiple times. Mr. Hunt's own readers called him on his statements about Spurgeon and Hunt did not actually retract the statements and even further dug himself deeper into the hole by saying that Spurgeon toyed with accepting hyper-Calvinism. He makes basic factual errors, Ray. He is not a man you can really trust to accurately represent what others have written. I have not yet gotten hold of his debate book with Dr. White. I hope it is a better book than his others. However, the book from which you quote, I know is one of the poorest works of "scholarship" I have ever found. The first statement you make, for example, is simply the genetic fallacy of logic, not real thoughtful scholarship. If you toss out Aristotle, for example, then you toss out the cosmological argument for the existence of God, which many persons, including Geisler, including Hunt himself, use when discussing theism v. atheism. Should we, therefore, discount the cosmological arguement when discussing the validity of theism with atheists and others. No, that would be silly. That's the kind of "logic" that is behind Hunt's writings. He is a very sloppy thinker.

 

[Bro Tony]

Gene,

I know you don't agree with Dave Hunt. I have never met a Calvinist who does. As Ray says in Hunt's books he always documents where he gets his statements. That you do not agree with his conclusions does not put him in the same category as Riplinger and Ruckman. Those two are completely different animals, as a matter of fact in his newsletter Dave speaks against Riplinger's book on "New Age Versions". Dave is not KJVO but he is KJV perferred.

The topic of this thread is not Dave Hunt, but you left the inference that Dave would not even deal with White on this matter. Then you used a letter dated in 2002, the book shows that these two men have dealt with the issue. That it did not take place in a verbal debate is to our benefit from my perspective. I now have both of their views in written form, where they both had time to think it out and document.

I like James White, I don't agree with his Calvinistic view. I appreciate his stands and writings on the Word. I like Dave Hunt, I don't agree with him on his views of musical styles in the church. I appreciate his stand on Catholism and new age thought in the church. I believe they are both men of God who are dealing with a difficult ministry call----apologetics. They both make themselves targets for all to throw things at. But they are nothing like Rip & Ruck.

You and I may not agree on this issue but let's at least, in our zeal to get our point across, realize that we may not see everything as it eternally is.

God Bless,

Bro Tony

 

[Bro Tony]

What could be more unloving and arbitrary than that?

Paul,

From man's perspective your question and statements can be easily turned around. What could be more unloving and arbitrary than that? How about the idea that Jesus' all powerful, all sufficient blood is only offered for a select few and all others have no hope of salvation even though there are preachers are out there sharing a Gospel that these people have no hope of ever receiving.

I have always said, I will begin to take Calvinism more seriously the day I meet a Calvinist who is not one of the elect.

Bro Tony

 

[GeneMBridges]

Tony,

I disagree with Hunt more about his lack of scholarship in approaching issues in publications than I do his own views. Hunt has admitted to not understanding the original languages. He has not retracted basic errors of fact. He will quote persons from the opposing viewpoint one way and simply take what they say out of context. Like I said, these are a whole host of errors in that book from which Ray quotes. I would have much more respect for him if he would retract his errors, admit his mistakes, et.al., but he does not. Like I said, it is one thing to hold an opposing view; it is another thing to be plain ignorant, but it is quite another to know the facts and paint caricatures, misrepresent primary sources, and all these other basic errors and publish them in a book.

 

[Bro Tony]

Gene,
Have you read "Debating Calvinism"? I wonder if you have any thoughts? I understand your feelings about Dave Hunt, I hear it from many Calvinist around here. What is interesting is that many of them thought he hung the moon in dealing with Catholism and new age, but now that he has dealt with Calvinism they attack him. I would like to know your thoughts on the book and the debate if you have read it. Thanks

Bro Tony

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What could be more unloving and arbitrary than that?

Paul,

From man's perspective your question and statements can be easily turned around. What could be more unloving and arbitrary than that? How about the idea that Jesus' all powerful, all sufficient blood is only offered for a select few and all others have no hope of salvation even though there are preachers are out there sharing a Gospel that these people have no hope of ever receiving.

I have always said, I will begin to take Calvinism more seriously the day I meet a Calvinist who is not one of the elect.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Tony, Don is actually turning those statements made v. Calvinism around to show that very thing. How is the Arminian view not arbitrary.

The problem with the objection that the Calvinist view of election that says God is being arbitrary is the very definition of arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary says that a choice has no fixed rules and that it is random or by chance. Ephesians 2 says that God predestines with a purpse (and Rom.8 says those whom He predestines, He calls and justifies, and glorifies). In short, the objection defeats itself, by the very definition of the word used. If something is arbitrary, it must be random. We do not teach that election is random. We simply teach it is not anchored in any intrinsic quality in us, it is God alone. God does not, indeed can not do something truly random or by chance, and the texts all plainly state what He's doing has a purpose, so it can't be random?

On the other hand, you have Arminians that will say no form of election is individual, it is only general. Well, first of all that's more arbitrary, because it is ultimately grounded in us, and we all know that, unlike God, humans are pretty arbitrary. However, no Arminian will admit that. Second, groups are all composed of individuals anyway, so by believing in general election, you ultimately have to agree that God does some kind of individual election. Lastly, I don't know of any Arminian that can look at Acts and say that God is not specifically guiding the spread of the gospel. (For that matter, there are MANY examples of individual election in Acts, but that to the side). The point is, if God is telling the Christians not to go one place and to go to another, if He has any direct control at all, then He is, by definition, determining which persons (whether individually or corporately) will hear the gospel and be saved and who will not do so.

 

[Bro Tony]

The point is, if God is telling the Christians not to go one place and to go to another, if He has any direct control at all, then He is, by definition, determining which persons (whether individually or corporately) will hear the gospel and be saved and who will not do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thought and then this old man has to go to bed. Your final statement brings up the interesting discussion on the place of the foreknowledge of God, and not the predetermination of God that only a few will be saved.

I will check again in the morning to here your thoughts, thanks for you kind spirit in this discussion.

Bro Tony

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
Gene,
Have you read "Debating Calvinism"? I wonder if you have any thoughts? I understand your feelings about Dave Hunt, I hear it from many Calvinist around here. What is interesting is that many of them thought he hung the moon in dealing with Catholism and new age, but now that he has dealt with Calvinism they attack him. I would like to know your thoughts on the book and the debate if you have read it. Thanks

Bro Tony

As I told Ray, I have not read that book. I had eye surgury earlier this year because I almost went blind. My reading is behind, as is my budget. However, Ray did not quote from that particular book. The book from which he quoted, however is a different animal. I hope Hunt has improved. The other book, What Love is This is rife with poor logic, outright misrepresentations, basic historical errors, and all sorts of things, that I sincerely hope he has corrected. I would be very surprised, knowing Dr. White, if he would even have his name attached to a publication that contained those sorts of errors.

I, for one, try to check sources, at least on random sampling basis. Ironically, Dr. White is debating w/my former NT prof. at SEBTS, Maurice Robinson, over the Byzantine texttype. One thing I learned from Dr. Robinson is to check sources. We used Guthrie's Intro. text (which if you've seen it or used it is a TOME, in every sense of the word), and he had us turn in papers, weekly I think, in which we had to go back and research ten of the footnotes at a time. That is why I say, I have tons of respect for persons on the opposing aisle that correctly use their sources. On the other hand, it is very clear that Hunt did not handle his sources well in the book from which Ray quotes as "having no error." It has plenty (the Spurgeon error/s is/are some of the worst), enough to make it highly suspect. It is not a source I would advertise as being one that I think is without error.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The point is, if God is telling the Christians not to go one place and to go to another, if He has any direct control at all, then He is, by definition, determining which persons (whether individually or corporately) will hear the gospel and be saved and who will not do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thought and then this old man has to go to bed. Your final statement brings up the interesting discussion on the place of the foreknowledge of God, and not the predetermination of God that only a few will be saved.

I will check again in the morning to here your thoughts, thanks for you kind spirit in this discussion.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Um, ok, ...Gene thinks his friend in AZ is really sleepy, cuz, uh, Tony, buddy, throw us a bone here...what about it? I mean, I'm kinda scratching my bald head here and saying, uh, well, uh, yeah, God foreknows...He intimately knows us (That, I believe is the definition of the word), now, what aspect of His foreknowledge? Is your question thread worthy (so we don't hijack this one too far off Don's original post)? If so, toss us out a paragraph or two for the weekend.

Night

 

[Ray Berrian]

Gene M. Bridges,

You said,

'Hunt has admitted to not understanding the original languages.'

I believe Dave Hunt is a lay person; at least I never saw his name saying Rev. or Dr. Dave Hunt. Since many have problems with the interpretation of Drs. of the church you should find comfort in this man. What I like about the book is he explains the difficult texts for all to see and understand, apart from any other book or author references.

You say Mr. Hunt did not know the languages. In that case, you would have to throw out Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion because he could not even recite the Greek alphabet. He never knew one Greek word, but you might guess what language he did understand. Latin! This is a documented fact. Augustine and Calvin took all their theology from R.C. Latin interpretations of the Greek text. Must I go on with his ill equipped preparedness to offer up to God a more Christian and Protestant understanding of the Bible. This is why Calvin was in 'lockstep' with the renowned Roman Catholic scholar St. Augustine. Calvinism is Roman Catholicism in its early development, though they have evolved more toward Arminius.

My guess is that even this will not cause you to throw up a red flag, on behalf of your Calvinistic believers and thinkers. Reformed Baptists types like other Five Pointers are warmed over Catholics minus the confessional, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation (etc)

Dave Hunt is ardently orthodox and Protestant.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Bro Tony;
I have recently read Dave Hunt's "What Love is this" as well and I am working on His "Debating Calvinism" with White. To be honest I'm disappointed in White's superior attitude it's what turns me off. He had this same know it all attitude in the KJV debates.
It seems to me that when most Calvinist can't disprove the scripture that speaks against the ideas of Calvinism they begin to redefine the words in those scriptures or attack personally those who they are debating with.
It's like a pattern they follow as if they've been trained to follow certain techniques.

These debates are really all still very new to me. Most of my time here has been spent reading archives. I haven't read them all but wow what heated arguments of the past.

What interest me most is the cause of these arguments. Seems that men become very irritated when they discover they don't really know as much as they thought. Including my self. The two subjects that men like to argue most is religion and politics. And it always seems tooth and nail if you know what I mean.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Paul33]

Brother Tony said:

"I have always said, I will begin to take Calvinism more seriously the day I meet a Calvinist who is not one of the elect."

That's my problem with Arminianism. So many Arminians are clearly not of the elect!

Now Brother Tony, will you answer the problem posed in the question?

We must hear the gospel so that we can respond in faith and believe! But billions have never heard the gospel. They weren't given the opportunity to hear and believe. Therefore God is unfair, unloving, and arbitrary.

This is an honest question, and if I didn't have an answer for it, I would disregard the God of the Bible.

Open theism is one solution.
Barth's soteriology is another.
Both of which I know you would reject.

So what's the evangelical Arminian solution? Can I suggest that there isn't one, and that's why no Arminian has answered the question.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Paul;

When man is born, God has given him a conscience. This mechanism with in man is like cell memory where memeroy is carried down through the line of man by inheritance. It's called the Law. knowing right from wrong. If man pays attention to it and heeds it's warnings. He'll find the truth if He doesn't give up and settle for a lie.

You asked;

So what's the evangelical Arminian solution? Can I suggest that there isn't one, and that's why no Arminian has answered the question.

While I'm not an Arminian I am evangelical and no I do not consider myself anything other than a Christian.
I have already given you Romans 1:20 and you ignored it altogether. I hope you will meditate on this one and I try to be clear with scripture;

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

You see there is no man without excuse there conscience bears witness not just of the Law but of truth.

I know you're an itelligent person, and even intelligent people miss what is clearly said in God's word. I have and everybody has that has read it. Look at all of Romans looking for the answers you want. try this one again;Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because a man never hears the gospel isn't God's fault that man didn't seek out the truth.

I know some truth and that is God is real. I didn't learn this from the Bible I already knew it. even though I know this I still seek truth everyday. I search the scriptures all the time for truth. Sometimes that truth is blurred by men because they can't deal with the light of the word so they take it and twist it to make it fit them rather than allowing the word make them, fit it.

IMHO Calvinism is an attempt of man to make the Word fit them. They do not take it literally, but instead pull it apart and redefine it over and over until it fits them. Such as our discussion of the meaning of the words "All", "Whosoever" "World", and "anyone".
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Gene M. Bridges,

You said, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 'Hunt has admitted to not understanding the original languages.'

I believe Dave Hunt is a lay person; at least I never saw his name saying Rev. or Dr. Dave Hunt. Since many have problems with the interpretation of Drs. of the church you should find comfort in this man. What I like about the book is he explains the difficult texts for all to see and understand, apart from any other book or author references.

You say Mr. Hunt did not know the languages. In that case, you would have to throw out Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion because he could not even recite the Greek alphabet. He never knew one Greek word, but you might guess what language he did understand. Latin! This is a documented fact. Augustine and Calvin took all their theology from R.C. Latin interpretations of the Greek text. Must I go on with his ill equipped preparedness to offer up to God a more Christian and Protestant understanding of the Bible. This is why Calvin was in 'lockstep' with the renowned Roman Catholic scholar St. Augustine. Calvinism is Roman Catholicism in its early development, though they have evolved more toward Arminius.

My guess is that even this will not cause you to throw up a red flag, on behalf of your Calvinistic believers and thinkers. Reformed Baptists types like other Five Pointers are warmed over Catholics minus the confessional, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation (etc)

Dave Hunt is ardently orthodox and Protestant. </font>[/QUOTE]Ray,

If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed,"


Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can MERIT for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods," (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), par. 2027).


They add merit to the atonement, which means the atonement is potential and actual, wich is the same view of the atonement as classic Arminians.

Salvation must be maintained by good works, which is the same belief as Arminians that reject eternal security/perseverance of the saints.


They reject unconditional election, because they believe in infusion of grace through the administration of sacraments as a condition of salvation. The Eucharist continues the infusion of grace gained at baptism, which they also teach can be lost, so losing a person his salvation.

They reject total depravity, though they do believe in original sin. They affirm liberine freewill after conversion. Libertine freewill prior to and after conversion is a thoroughly Arminian belief.


Catholics do not believe in total depravity. They believe in infusion of grace, not imputation. They believe in conditional election, not unconditional election (as you become elect via baptism, a thing grounded in man, not God). They believe that sanctification and justification are one and the same, just as many Arminians do (like the Wesleyans). They believe you can lose salvation (though many contradict themselves and say you can't, but their actual teachings very clearly state otherwise), they believe in resistible grace that needs to be constantly maintained through the Eucharist, they believe in unlimited atonement. Ray, Catholics have far more in common with Arminianism than they do Calvinism. Your entire post shows you very clearly do not know what Catholicism teaches. I very rarely show my credentials in such matters. On this, I am doing so. Ray, my undergraduate degree is in history, specifically in European Religious, Cultural, and Social Development. I Know extremely well what the Anglican Communion's theology is, what the Roman Catholic Church theology is, and what Lutheran/Calvinistic theology teaches, and I can tell you categorically that they are worlds apart. What's more I got that degree while studying the material in Europe itself, where I was taught by a professor, Dr. Firth, himself a member of the Brethren, an ardent Arminian; who was also Scots and, as a result knew Presbyterianism quite well. You are no Dr. Firth, sir, or you would know you are completely off base in those assertions. Rather than drawing on Dave Hunt alone, I urge you strongly to check his own sources in that book you like so much. He makes basic errors of fact and misrepresentations like the one above.

[ November 05, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

[Bro Tony]

Hi Mike,

I have read both of the books and am now going throught "Debating Calvinism" for a second time. I would agree that White does tend to be condesending in places. Hunt can get strong verbally also. I am trying to take my time and research both their stands and consider their arguments.

Paul,

I am not an arminian. I don't know how many times I have to declare that. I wont let you or anyone else put me into a man theological perspective that I must be locked into. There are more than just two narrow ways to look at this. Both camps have difficult passages that they must deal with. I fear they are not usually dealt with in a biblical way, but approached in a pre-conceived theological stance and thus interpreted that way. I would agree much with what Mike wrote above about your question. I believe God is big enough to reach those He knows will receive Him with His Gospel. That does not equate to Him removing their free choice to accept or reject.

Gene,

The point I was sleeply trying to make last night is this, Does God's foreknowledge equate to predestination?

Bro Tony