Did a C or A say this?

[JonC]

I think one of the biggest problems I have seen is everyone trying to put people under these two groups. Your either calvinist or arminian. There is no inbetween. So then no one can discuss because we are trying to put someone in a group they do not belong to..

This is absolutely correct. I am not "in-between" but neither.

 

[Reformed1689]

You don't need the context, but It is in the context of a Calvinistic commentary on Salvation by Grace alone Through Faith alone. It's not an out of context sentence. The group of CALVINISTS ON HERE, have accused both myself, @Revmitchell , and many others of "works based salvation" for saying one has to accept the free gift of Salvation. Here, J.M. says "reach out" to accept salvation and that is OK? Maybe J.M. is just ignorant or does not understand Calvinism???

It came from J.M. Commentry series. Vol 1 Romans. Chapter 4 vv3-5

I know where it came from. If faith is the first part, in other words, we initiate, that is works based. I know that is not what JM is stating. God initiates, gives us the faith to reach out and accept the gift he has given us already. It's already ours. That's the difference. I was saying just by reading that one line there isn't the context you have on the rest of JM's overall theology on the topic and what he means by that.

 

[Reformed1689]

Both readily admit that not all Scripture supports Calvinism , some supports Arminianism.

Which is just ignorant. Either one is totally correct and all of Scripture supports it, or Neither are correct and none of Scripture supports it, or both have partial correctness and some of Scripture supports both. That last category is the onlyway that view can be true.

 

[Reynolds]

I know where it came from. If faith is the first part, in other words, we initiate, that is works based. I know that is not what JM is stating. God initiates, gives us the faith to reach out and accept the gift he has given us already. It's already ours. That's the difference. I was saying just by reading that one line there isn't the context you have on the rest of JM's overall theology on the topic and what he means by that.

Of course J.M. believes God initiates the faith, but it has been repeatedly stated on here that receiving is a "work".

 

[Reynolds]

Which is just ignorant. Either one is totally correct and all of Scripture supports it, or Neither are correct and none of Scripture supports it, or both have partial correctness and some of Scripture supports both. That last category is the onlyway that view can be true.

There we have it. John Macarthur and D James Kennedy are ignorant.
If you listen to Mac, he quite often admits passages are problematic to Calvinism. He believed that a proponderance of the evidence falls to Calvinism.

 

[Reformed1689]

One thing I have observed on this forum, @Reynolds , is that a sect of Calvinists ban together and argue as a group. If one member of the group makes an error the rest try to hide it. If one member opposes one of in their camp they attack. And ultimately they never really get to the heart of the issue.

At the same time there are Calvinists on this forum who carefully consider Scripture, who can look at opposing views for what they are rather than the characterization they want them to be. But they rarely get caught up in the debates here (they know it is a debate that cannot be won or lost).

There are parts of this statement that are true, but overall this is an unfair characterization.

 

[Reformed1689]

Of course J.M. believes God initiates the faith, but it has been repeatedly stated on here that receiving is a "work".

I can't speak for others, that's not what I have argued. It depends on how you nuance it.

 

[Reformed1689]

There we have it. John Macarthur and D James Kennedy are ignorant.
If you listen to Mac, he quite often admits passages are problematic to Calvinism. He believed that a proponderance of the evidence falls to Calvinism.

I've never actually seen JM state that any Scripture supports Arminianism. Do you have any references?

 

[Reformed1689]

Will be interesting to see what they say because so far they are avoiding it.

I certainly have not avoided it, so I don't know how you can honestly make this statement.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Will be interesting to see what they say because so far they are avoiding it.

There has been a pattern on here for years of the same behavior. A non cal says exactly what a Calvinist says and the Arminian is Ignorant and does not understand Calvinism. A Calvinist say the same thing .....Crickets.

from experience. Although I may be surprised. I doubt you will get an answer..

From my experience they wait until time passes and people forget. then they will come in and start blame shifting and taking the topic off what was being asked.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is absolutely correct. I am not "in-between" but neither.

Same here..But I have been called an arminian by a calvinist. and a calvinist by an arminian.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Which is just ignorant. Either one is totally correct and all of Scripture supports it, or Neither are correct and none of Scripture supports it, or both have partial correctness and some of Scripture supports both. That last category is the onlyway that view can be true.

you can find support for both views.

Eternal security supports calvin

yet free will supports arminian

I believe in both.. So there is no way to have a proper discussion with either group if they attempt to put me under a calvin vs arminian debate.

 

[JonC]

Will be interesting to see what they say because so far they are avoiding it.

There has been a pattern on here for years of the same behavior. A non cal says exactly what a Calvinist says and the Arminian is Ignorant and does not understand Calvinism. A Calvinist say the same thing .....Crickets.

Crickets or insults.

I think the issue is Calvinists are a relatively small group within Christianity and they can function as a more concise sect because they have adopted the same theories.

When is the last time you heard a Calvinist (on this forum) applaud a non-Calvinist writing? Yet there are many non-Calvinists who appreciate the contributions of men like George Müller, Jonathan Edward's, John Piper, and even John MacArthur.

Calvinists tend to keep blinders on when it comes to other interpretations of Scripture. They think that they alone have stumbled on the truth, that no non-Calvinist Christian in history ever seriously studied Isaiah 53.

But when we say "non-Calvinist" we are mot speaking about Christians who hold the sane view.

They may affirm Wesleyan Arminianism, Reformation Arminianism, Classic Anabaptist Theology, or any number of beliefs. These are not in a "camp", and they are not threatened by competing ideas.

There are many good Calvinists, although perhaps not on this board. The difference is many in general will consider other views and weigh them against Scripture while on these types of forums you will find most simply defending their camp.

 

[JonC]

Same here..But I have been called an arminian by a calvinist. and a calvinist by an arminian.

I have had the same experience. At one time I was a Calvinist. The online company I kept (Calvinists) made me question the validity of the position, but Scripture itself forced me to abandon the view. I still have a lot in common with Calvinists, just not near enough to be one.

 

[AustinC]

Crickets or insults.

I think the issue is Calvinists are a relatively small group within Christianity and they can function as a more concise sect because they have adopted the same theories.

When is the last time you heard a Calvinist (on this forum) applaud a non-Calvinist writing? Yet there are many non-Calvinists who appreciate the contributions of men like George Müller, Jonathan Edward's, John Piper, and even John MacArthur.

Calvinists tend to keep blinders on when it comes to other interpretations of Scripture. They think that they alone have stumbled on the truth, that no non-Calvinist Christian in history ever seriously studied Isaiah 53.

But when we say "non-Calvinist" we are mot speaking about Christians who hold the sane view.

They may affirm Wesleyan Arminianism, Reformation Arminianism, Classic Anabaptist Theology, or any number of beliefs. These are not in a "camp", and they are not threatened by competing ideas.

There are many good Calvinists, although perhaps not on this board. The difference is many in general will consider other views and weigh them against Scripture while on these types of forums you will find most simply defending their camp.

Only speaking for myself, I grew up in the free will world of holiness thinking with Tozer and crew. I was steeped and raised in doctrines that I found the Bible did not support. The world of legalism that either increased my pride or brought me to utter despair is a world that I cannot go back to. It would be like a dog returning to its own vomit. No thank you. I've been there. I know the undercurrent and the danger of man-centered theology.

So, Jon, I personally find no value in digging around the garbage philosophies of free will thinking. I would warn you against such authors, but it seems you have drank deep from the kool-aid.

 

[Iconoclast]

Only speaking for myself, I grew up in the free will world of holiness thinking with Tozer and crew. I was steeped and raised in doctrines that I found the Bible did not support. The world of legalism that either increased my pride or brought me to utter despair is a world that I cannot go back to. It would be like a dog returning to its own vomit. No thank you. I've been there. I know the undercurrent and the danger of man-centered theology.

So, Jon, I personally find no value in digging around the garbage philosophies of free will thinking. I would warn you against such authors, but it seems you have drank deep from the kool-aid.

Yes....it is obvious

 

[JonC]

Only speaking for myself, I grew up in the free will world of holiness thinking with Tozer and crew. I was steeped and raised in doctrines that I found the Bible did not support. The world of legalism that either increased my pride or brought me to utter despair is a world that I cannot go back to. It would be like a dog returning to its own vomit. No thank you. I've been there. I know the undercurrent and the danger of man-centered theology.

So, Jon, I personally find no value in digging around the garbage philosophies of free will thinking. I would warn you against such authors, but it seems you have drank deep from the kool-aid.

I also do not find value in digging around in men's theologies. That said, this does not mean that men like Dewight Moody, CS Lewis, and Tozier have nothing of benefit to offer.

As you know, I believe in predestination (and reprobation). So your charge that I have drank the free-will "kool-aid" is kinda weird. This goes back to what @Reynolds and @Eternally Grateful were talking about and proves them correct.

I understand ypu cannot go back to Tozer's doctrine. I couldn't go there either. Now I could not go back to Calvinism for the same reason - it would be as a dog returning to his own vomit.

This is normal. When you find an error it is silly to return to that error. This dies not mean I cannot worship with Calvinists or with Free-will Baptists. Those who are truly saved are my family, and we remain united in Christ even as we are divided over theology.

I can appreciate Tozier as a godly man God used for His purposes while at the same time find his neglect for his family and aspects of his theology the results of the man being human, finite, and capable of error.

The problem with only reading the works of men who have a perfect theology is there are none in this lifetime. The problem with only reading those who say what you want to hear ("tickle your ears") as you become unable to discern truth from error. They tell you the ink blot is a bat and pretty soon you can't see it as an ink blot.

 

[Reformed1689]

you can find support for both views.

Eternal security supports calvin

yet free will supports arminian

I believe in both.. So there is no way to have a proper discussion with either group if they attempt to put me under a calvin vs arminian debate.

You can believe in both and still believe in Free Will. I am Calvinist and I believe in Free Will.

 

[Reformed1689]

but Scripture itself forced me to abandon the view.

We know that is not true.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I have had the same experience. At one time I was a Calvinist. The online company I kept (Calvinists) made me question the validity of the position, but Scripture itself forced me to abandon the view. I still have a lot in common with Calvinists, just not near enough to be one.

Some people seem to think you can only be on or the other (unless your catholic)

then wonder why we can;t have a normal conversation