Can Armenian Calvinists Co-Exist?

[Rippon]

The exposition of a very able doctor = John Gill ( in all likelihood)

CHS for all his wonderful gifts fell behind Gill in exegetical abilities.And Dr.Gill has not been the only Calvinist who arrived at interpreting "all men" as meaning "all sorts".

Have to go.I've a class to teach.

 

[Allan]

The exposition of a very able doctor = John Gill ( in all likelihood)

CHS for all his wonderful gifts fell behind Gill in exegetical abilities.And Dr.Gill has not been the only Calvinist who arrived at interpreting "all men" as meaning "all sorts".

Have to go.I've a class to teach.

And this is one of those places where the notable John Gill failed in his exegetical abilities. Doesn't take away from his many accomplishments just shows he is human and also trys to force his theological view upon the scriptures as well.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Can Armenian Calvinist Co-exist?

Yes. But they're not not compatable theologies.

 

[Allan]

Yes. But they're not not compatable theologies.

First we must remember that theology is simply a combination of man's understandings or opinions of the scriptures in relation to God, salvation and other religous aspects of faith and life. Therefore both systems are falable and imperfect.

However both views are seen in scripture it is either the arrogant or ignorant who say they are not. They are both there, it is just our finite minds can not bring them together in one perfect theology. Thus we see some from both sides who tend to twist, rend or redefine the scriptures to fit a preconceived or postulated view/opinions so as to not see any such contention.

 

[sag38]

Truth be told, I lean more heavily towards a calvinist perspective but for me it not a hill woth dying on. I don't even preach in those regards unless I happen to be in Romans 9. There are too many more important matters to focus on than forcing TULIPS down people's throats.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First we must remember that theology is simply a combination of man's understandings or opinions of the scriptures in relation to God, salvation and other religous aspects of faith and life. Therefore both systems are falable and imperfect.

However both views are seen in scripture it is either the arrogant or ignorant who say they are not. They are both there, it is just our finite minds can not bring them together in one perfect theology. Thus we see some from both sides who tend to twist, rend or redefine the scriptures to fit a preconceived or postulated view/opinions so as to not see any such contention.

Yes that's true. But the Theologies still aren't compatable.

 

[JustChristian]

I rather think (respectfully) ya'll (and here "all" does not necessarily mean every individual poster :thumbs: ) are missing Spurgeon's point. He is not claiming to have Arminianism and Calvinism co-existing in his belief system. He is simply saying that he preached the Word as it was written, and didn't try to force everything into a philosophical/theological system. Notice that he said it "looks rather like Arminianism." He is also saying what others have called him, not what he calls himself.

He's right, there are verses that may appear "Arminian." But that does not mean that both systems are taught in the Bible. God simply gives us both His perspective (absolute sovereign) and our perspective (complete responsibility), and let's us know that His sovereign control of all things does not in any way cancel out our responsibility to believe, love, and obey Him.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Bob House

Responsibility is not our perspective as opposed to God's perspective. Where does it say that in the Bible? What Jesus said was:

Luk 9:23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luk 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

"Let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." That says to me that we have a great deal of responsibility to take on if we want to become Christians. That's a command given directly by Jesus.

 

[JustChristian]

First we must remember that theology is simply a combination of man's understandings or opinions of the scriptures in relation to God, salvation and other religous aspects of faith and life. Therefore both systems are falable and imperfect.

However both views are seen in scripture it is either the arrogant or ignorant who say they are not. They are both there, it is just our finite minds can not bring them together in one perfect theology. Thus we see some from both sides who tend to twist, rend or redefine the scriptures to fit a preconceived or postulated view/opinions so as to not see any such contention.

Absolutely. Read my post #10.

 

[Rippon]

And this is one of those places where the notable John Gill failed in his exegetical abilities. Doesn't take away from his many accomplishments just shows he is human and also trys to force his theological view upon the scriptures as well.

In your biased estimation Gill failed in his exegisis.But, in my admittedly biased view, he gloriously succeeded.John Owen, John Wycliffe, Jonathan Edwards,John Bunyan and John Newton ( just among some of the 'Johns' alone) taught the same regarding 1 Timothy 2:4-6 as Gill.

Folks who try and twist Scripture to say that 'sheep' means everyone are guilty of forcing their theology upon the Bible. Or they might say :"Yeah, Christ laid down His life for the sheep and the goats also." They try to say that :"Sure, Christ died for the Church, but also for everyone else too."

These folks insist that "Of course God is responsible for my salvation, but I was the one who decided to be saved -- He did not cause me to be saved.As a side-note, He knew about it -- but I deserve the credit, because without my say-so I would not have beed saved."

I could cite numerous other examples just from many Arminians-- Pelagians on the BB. They wrest the Scriptures toward their own destruction.

 

[Rippon]

However both views are seen in scripture it is either the arrogant or ignorant who say they are not. They are both there, it is just our finite minds can not bring them together in one perfect theology.

No, you are categorically wrong. God does not accomodate opposites being true.Spurgeon had given an example of some folks not be able to reconcile mans' responsibility with divine foreordination. Calvinists have no problem with that. It's not a contradiction, although many on the other side of the theological aisle think so.

Two sharply contrasting concepts are not taught in the Word of God. God is not irrational, nor the Word of God. Think about the flawed logic of your contention. How does one such as yourself somehow claim that :"In some sense Christ died for all, but in another sense He died only for His elect." Bunk.It is logically inconsistent to say the least. It may 'comfort' some to dwell in the tents of confusion, but I would rather live in the certainties of God's clear Word.

 

[Rippon]

It was primarily Calvinistic, who denied this?

Name just one prominent non-Calvinistic leader involved in the original formation of the SBC.

 

[Allan]

Name just one prominent non-Calvinistic leader involved in the original formation of the SBC.

Hellllllloooooooooo...

Who said anything about the SBC's leader having Non-Cals in it?

You keep twisting and twisting. I said the SBC was mostly Calvinist at its inception not that it's leadership was mostly Calvinistic.

 

[Rippon]

Who said anything about the SBC's leader having Non-Cals in it?

Rip: Do mean leadership?If so, we're in agreement. There were no non-Cal leaders in the formation of the SBC.

I said the SBC was mostly Calvinist at its inception not that it's leadership was mostly Calvinistic.

Rip: Which is it?You seemed to acknowledge that the leadership of the SSC was Calvinistic, now you're saying that its leaders were composed of non-Cals?You are puzzling. Can you arrive at a straight answer sometime in the near future?:laugh: Please don't contradict yourself in the space of a few sentences.

 

[Allan]

No, you are categorically wrong.

Again - opinion.

God does not accomodate opposites being true.Spurgeon had given an example of some folks not be able to reconcile mans' responsibility with divine foreordination. Calvinists have no problem with that.

He was a staunch Calvinist.

It's not a contradiction, although many on the other side of the theological aisle think so.

On both sides you mean.

However I never said it was a contradiction I spoke of the 'tensions' in scripture.

Two sharply contrasting concepts are not taught in the Word of God.

Of course not but mans understanding bring about "two sharply contrasting concepts" through the theologies we have come up with.

How does one such as yourself somehow claim that :"In some sense Christ died for all, but in another sense He died only for His elect." Bunk.It is logically inconsistent to say the least.

No, it is truth not bunk. It is your understanding of the text that will not allow for what God said to be truth. Scripture does state He died for His sheep but never do you see in scripture that He died for His sheep alone now will you? No, not unless you redefine certain things and change certian meanings to accomidate a particular theological view, something Spurgeon did not wish to be guilty of regardless of his love for his theology.

 

[Allan]

Rip: Which is it?You seemed to acknowledge that the leadership of the SSC was Calvinistic, now you're saying that its leaders were composed of non-Cals?You are puzzling. Can you arrive at a straight answer sometime in the near future?:laugh: Please don't contradict yourself in the space of a few sentences.

Now your being outright ridiculous.

Originally I didn't say anything about it's leadership but that the Calvinists worked along side the Non-Cals in the orginization known as the SBC.
You brought it's leadership up as if I were.

 

[Rippon]

Scripture does state He died for His sheep but never do you see in scripture that He died for His sheep alone now will you? No, not unless you redefine certain things and change certian meanings to accomidate a particular theological view, something Spurgeon did not wish to be guilty of regardless of his love for his theology.

John 10:11:"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

10:14-16 : "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."

Read these verses again. It does not say that Christ also died for or laid down His life for any but the sheep. The sins of the goats were not atoned. I am not 'redefining things', but you are.CHS was of the same mind as myself when it came to the biblical understanding that Christ died only for the sheep. You will have no success in bringing him in here as a witness for your Arminian theology.

 

[Rippon]

God does not accomodate opposites being true.Spurgeon had given an example of some folks not be able to reconcile mans' responsibility with divine foreordination. Calvinists have no problem with that. It's not a contradiction, although many on the other side of the theological aisle think so.

Rip: In response to the above Allen said that both sides have a problem with this. Could you please furnish any evidence that any Calvinist has an issue in proclaiming that man stands guilty and is thus responsible for his sins before the Thrice Holy God? No Calvinist denies the full accountability of man.Document your charge. If you can't do the impossible, then admit you were wrong about that.

 

[Allan]

John 10:11:"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

10:14-16 : "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."

Read these verses again. It does not say that Christ also died for or laid down His life for any but the sheep. The sins of the goats were not atoned. I am not 'redefining things', but you are.CHS was of the same mind as myself when it came to the biblical understanding that Christ died only for the sheep. You will have no success in bringing him in here as a witness for your Arminian theology.

Actaully CHS is the 'exact' example to bring in here since he address the tensions in scritputre.

And agian scripture does not state He died ONLY for the sheep. And yes we DO have scripture which states His death was for more than JUST His sheep:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

According to John's usage of the phrase 'whole world' it constistantly refers to the sinful and unregenerate world.

And you can keep your childish attempts at insults in your own mind. I realize it is typical for you but still sad. I am as much an Arminian as you are a full blown Pelganian.

 

[Rippon]

Originally I didn't say anything about it's leadership but that the Calvinists worked along side the Non-Cals in the orginization known as the SBC.

Rip : You said in post #32 that the SBC was mostly Calvinistic at its inception. Then, in the same sentence denied that the leadership was mostly Calvinistic. I have already proven that the leaders were all Calvinists. Since the leaders were uniformly Calvinists, it makes since that the bulk of the members were of the same stamp. I'll give you an example :The men who started the Free-Will Baptists were Arminians/Semi-Pelagians. These leaders represented the rank-and-file of that group. No Calvinist member would have lasted in that setting.


You brought it's leadership up as if I were.

Rip: As if you were what?

 

[Rippon]

I am as much an Arminian as you are a full blown Pelganian.

What's a Pelganian? Whatever it is,I'm sure I'm not one. Allan, you have to admit that your theology veers toward the Arminian side of the equation.This is especially evident since you think Christ died for the goats as well as the sheep.That is far from a Calvinistic understanding of Christ's cross-work.