Historic VS Contemporary Arminianism

[Yeshua1]

I'm not sure why you think the things you are saying are new news to me. They are not. I have studied Calvin's life & reformation history too. I have never denied or defended Calvin's actions, He believed the church and state should work together to carry out God's justice. He was wrong. That's not the point. The point is saying true things about him, recognizing that he got some things right (Loving his wife even to her death, recognizing roman catholic errors), some things wrong (killing heretics), and some things that we can keep arguing about forever (Election).



That would be interesting, What exactly are you referring to?

was Calvin perfect? no, but neither was ANY of us, right?

And IF he was still a holder to the 'Mother Church", why would that church still regard him as a heretic?

meant to go to MB!

 

[12strings]

Calvinist kept the original doctrine of the church and left because the Popes had changed it in to something else. They still believed man needed to be the center head of the church. A pope. A vicar of Christ. Presbyterians still call there ministers Vicar.

Wow, for this at least, give some proof: Please Quote a presbyerian, or Calvin, or a calvinist who says that man needs to be the center head of the church.

Really? Those who wrote the London declaration 2000 disagree with you. read under " "A" Under a vision for reformation" they write and I quote "Such a vision is of a church which is both Catholic and reformed". Really you do need to do some reading.

They are using the word in its original meaning..."universal" or "whole."

The term catholic was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century (100's...Pre-constantine). (WIKI)

Using the word "Catholic" does not a heretic make...

btw, here's the next sentance of your quote... "We therefore call upon evangelicals to affirm a vision for reformation which is in accordance with the witness of Scripture and in continuity with the history testimony of the church. Such a vision is of a church which is both Catholic and Reformed. By 'Catholic' we do not mean 'Roman Catholic.'/"

 

[12strings]

I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm trying to give you the truth. Why would I do that? Because truth is important.
MB

It is important.... which is why we don't need exagerations like:

There was nothing good about the man.

 

[MB]

I'm not sure why you think the things you are saying are new news to me. They are not. I have studied Calvin's life & reformation history too. I have never denied or defended Calvin's actions, He believed the church and state should work together to carry out God's justice. He was wrong. That's not the point. The point is saying true things about him, recognizing that he got some things right (Loving his wife even to her death, recognizing roman catholic errors), some things wrong (killing heretics), and some things that we can keep arguing about forever (Election).



That would be interesting, What exactly are you referring to?

We are called pelagans, universalist, Arminians, and a few not so nice names like heritics above, and Liars, All, because we hold to a doctrine that existed before any of these men lived. Freewill was taught in the first churches for the first 300 years. There wasn't any Calvinism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism.
MB

 

[MB]

It is important.... which is why we don't need exagerations like:

I suppose you'll just have to face it None is good but the Father. Calvin was just a man and there was not one thing special about a man who claims to be a Christian and then commits murder. Christians are suppose to love their neighbors not murder them.

You have to admit it unlikely a Christian could kill even a true heritic.
MB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We are called pelagans, universalist, Arminians, and a few not so nice names like heritics above, and Liars, All, because we hold to a doctrine that existed before any of these men lived. Freewill was taught in the first churches for the first 300 years. There wasn't any Calvinism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism.
MB

Yes before they solidified a system they wanted....that was Catholicism....and as much as you & I dont like Catholicism it prevailed through for many years. It was men like Huss, Luther, Calvin, Knox Zwingli, etc who extracted people from the excesses & corruption of Roman Catholicism & there is a plus side, even though you may not wish to hear it.

But Roman Catholicism is making a strong comeback. Up here in the NE it dominates & its spreading & so what we are each going to do is become tribal & protect our boundaries Right!

I guess we have become today a militaristic people....we cannot live without negative energy. We cannot live in the realm of peace that Jesus announces in the gospels because the price of peace is 'Non-domination'.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes before they solidified a system they wanted....that was Catholicism....and as much as you & I dont like Catholicism it prevailed through for many years. It was men like Huss, Luther, Calvin, Knox Zwingli, etc who extracted people from the excesses & corruption of Roman Catholicism & there is a plus side, even though you may not wish to hear it.

But Roman Catholicism is making a strong comeback. Up here in the NE it dominates & its spreading & so what we are each going to do is become tribal & protect our boundaries Right!

I guess we have become today a militaristic people....we cannot live without negative energy. We cannot live in the realm of peace that Jesus announces in the gospels because the price of peace is 'Non-domination'.

Guess calvin and luther need to be told that they are now free to return to Mother church, as they are no longer heretics?

 

[MB]

Yes before they solidified a system they wanted....that was Catholicism....and as much as you & I dont like Catholicism it prevailed through for many years. It was men like Huss, Luther, Calvin, Knox Zwingli, etc who extracted people from the excesses & corruption of Roman Catholicism & there is a plus side, even though you may not wish to hear it.

What you really mean is that the Catholic church tried to take over but failed because they left to many martyrs behind. They never did completely extinguish all the true Christians. For many centuries they hunted and murdered as many who would not submit to Catholicism as they could. Yet still they have not killed us all. They very nearly did during the inquisition.

But Roman Catholicism is making a strong comeback. Up here in the NE it dominates & its spreading & so what we are each going to do is become tribal & protect our boundaries Right!

Better get you guns out and load 'em. Many are headed back in to the RCC and not just Calvinist.

I guess we have become today a militaristic people....we cannot live without negative energy. We cannot live in the realm of peace that Jesus announces in the gospels because the price of peace is 'Non-domination'.

It's not the denominations it's natural for man to turn his back on God. After all it's not called the Apostasy for nothing.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

What you really mean is that the Catholic church tried to take over but failed because they left to many martyrs behind. They never did completely extinguish all the true Christians. For many centuries they hunted and murdered as many who would not submit to Catholicism as they could. Yet still they have not killed us all. They very nearly did during the inquisition.

Better get you guns out and load 'em. Many are headed back in to the RCC and not just Calvinist.

It's not the denominations it's natural for man to turn his back on God. After all it's not called the Apostasy for nothing.
MB

They are fulfilling the scriptures of returning to their vomit, as John also stated, were AMONG US, BUT not WITH/ONE OF US!

 

[12strings]

We are called pelagans, universalist, Arminians, and a few not so nice names like heritics above, and Liars, All, because we hold to a doctrine that existed before any of these men lived. Freewill was taught in the first churches for the first 300 years. There wasn't any Calvinism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism....

...OR BAPTISTS!!!! :laugh:

 

[12strings]

I suppose you'll just have to face it. None is good but the Father. Calvin was just a man and there was not one thing special about a man who claims to be a Christian and then commits murder. Christians are suppose to love their neighbors not murder them.

You have to admit it unlikely a Christian could kill even a true heritic.

I think you need face this:

1. In scriptures you have true believers who commit terrible sins...David stole a man's wife and had him killed. Yet before and after this he was a man who knew and loved God. Would you say that there is nothing good or special about David?

2. Every person, Christian or not, is a product of their time, and not all of them are succesful in overcoming the cultural norms around them. When Calvin approved of executions, he was acting as a civil authority carrying out what he believed to be the just punishment for breaking a law, which in that time, the penalty for most crimes was death. We would disagree with his assesment of the deserved penalty, of course, and condemn his actions, as we should. In the 1800's there were true christians who had slaves. A man in my church was converted for years before he really became strongly pro-life. Christians can be Christians and still be wrong about some things, even their whole lives.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I think you need face this:

1. In scriptures you have true believers who commit terrible sins...David stole a man's wife and had him killed. Yet before and after this he was a man who knew and loved God. Would you say that there is nothing good or special about David?

2. Every person, Christian or not, is a product of their time, and not all of them are succesful in overcoming the cultural norms around them. When Calvin approved of executions, he was acting as a civil authority carrying out what he believed to be the just punishment for breaking a law, which in that time, the penalty for most crimes was death. We would disagree with his assesment of the deserved penalty, of course, and condemn his actions, as we should. In the 1800's there were true christians who had slaves. A man in my church was converted for years before he really became strongly pro-life. Christians can be Christians and still be wrong about some things, even their whole lives.

I wish people would stop using this to excuse so-called Christians from killing other Christians. The Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites were products of their times, too, which were the same times that the Protestant and Catholic murderers lived in, and yet these free church people were able to see that it was wrong and not in the spirit of Christ to kill other Christians in His name.

 

[12strings]

I wish people would stop using this to excuse so-called Christians from killing other Christians. The Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites were products of their times, too, which were the same times that the Protestant and Catholic murderers lived in, and yet these free church people were able to see that it was wrong and not in the spirit of Christ to kill other Christians in His name.

We aren't saying he is excused...we are saying that some people HAVE made some contributions despite going along with they bloody, or otherwise sinful, culture around them:

-Moses Killed a man
-David had a man killed
-Abraham gave his wife to another man to save his own skin
-George Washington had slaves
-Abraham Lincoln used bribery to accomplish abolition.
-Luther hated Jews
-Calvin approved of executions
-The Anabaptists before Menno Simons killed lots of people.

A completely rosy-eyed view of any person or group is nearly always false and unhelpful...as is a completely negative view...especially in Christian history.

BTW, off-topic, but the predominant Quaker doctrine is not Christian.

What do Quakers believe?
We believe that every person is loved and guided by God. Broadly speaking, we affirm that "there is that of God in everyone." Everyone is known by God and can know God in a direct relationship. We are called to attend to this relationship and to be guided by it. Quakers use many words to describe the Divine. Some of them include: God, the Light Within, Christ, Spirit, Seed, and Inward Teacher. [back to top]


Are Quakers Christian?
The Quaker way has deep Christian roots that form our understanding of God, our faith, and our practices. Many Quakers consider themselves Christian, and some do not. Many Quakers today draw spiritual nourishment from our Christian roots and strive to follow the example of Jesus. Many other Quakers draw spiritual sustenance from various religious traditions, such as Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and the nature religions. [back to top]


It sounds like Quakers can believe anything they like―is that so?
Quakers invite the word of God to be written in our hearts, rather than as words on paper—we have no creed. But we also believe that if we are sincerely open to the Divine Will, we will be guided by a Wisdom that is more compelling than our own more superficial thoughts and feelings. This can mean that we will find ourselves led in directions or receiving understandings that we may not have chosen just from personal preference. Following such guidance is not always easy. This is why community is important to Quakers, why we turn to each other for worshipful help in making important choices, and why we read the reflections of other Quakers who have lived faithful lives. [back to top]


Do Quakers believe in heaven and hell?
The emphasis of a Quaker’s life is on present time―on experiencing and following the leadings of the Light in our lives today. Individual Quakers hold a variety of beliefs about what follows our lives on earth. [back to top]


Do Quakers read the Bible?
The Bible is a book close to the hearts of many Friends. Many Quakers turn to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures for inspiration, insight, and guidance. They are valued as a source of wisdom that has been sacred to many generations. Quakers are informed by Biblical scholarship that offers perspective on the creation of the Bible and the understanding we have of it today. Most Quakers do not consider the Bible to be the final authority or the only source of sacred wisdom. We read it in the context of other religious writings and sources of wisdom, including the Light Within and worshipful community discernment. Some Quakers have little interest in the Bible.

 

[Herald]

There is much confusion between Arminianism and semi-Pelagianiam. Arminianism teaches that God takes the first steps in salvation, but that the individual still must respond by free will prior to regeneration. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man takes the first steps to God, also by free will. The difference between the two is razor thin at times.

Many Christians are ignorant of the Calvinist, Arminian, semi-Pelagian arguments. All they know is that they have placed their faith in Christ. Their lives bear fruit, and that is as far as the theological arguments go.

Some, even on this board, are of the opinion we should not even debate these things; that it needlessly divides the Church. The truth is that the Church is already divided. Look at number of different denominations. Even within denominations and associations (like the SBC) there are intramural battles. Take it down to the local church level and you will see the same thing. Churches split all the time, and for less serious issues than doctrine. This is why doctrine matters. This is why the truth must always be contended for. It does not mean that each Christian must have a seminary degree or even join the debate. I believe they should be knowledgeable of these things, but even if they are not, others will be fighting for the truth.

Personally I think that those who reject Calvinism are either semi-Pelagians or Arminians whether they like the labels or not. Most Baptists would be Arminian; except maybe for free will Baptists who lean semi-Pelagian.

 

[MB]

There is much confusion between Arminianism and semi-Pelagianiam. Arminianism teaches that God takes the first steps in salvation, but that the individual still must respond by free will prior to regeneration. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man takes the first steps to God, also by free will. The difference between the two is razor thin at times.

Many Christians are ignorant of the Calvinist, Arminian, semi-Pelagian arguments. All they know is that they have placed their faith in Christ. Their lives bear fruit, and that is as far as the theological arguments go.

Some, even on this board, are of the opinion we should not even debate these things; that it needlessly divides the Church. The truth is that the Church is already divided. Look at number of different denominations. Even within denominations and associations (like the SBC) there are intramural battles. Take it down to the local church level and you will see the same thing. Churches split all the time, and for less serious issues than doctrine. This is why doctrine matters. This is why the truth must always be contended for. It does not mean that each Christian must have a seminary degree or even join the debate. I believe they should be knowledgeable of these things, but even if they are not, others will be fighting for the truth.

Personally I think that those who reject Calvinism are either semi-Pelagians or Arminians whether they like the labels or not. Most Baptists would be Arminian; except maybe for free will Baptists who lean semi-Pelagian.

So you to would place an inappropriate label on freewill when there is proof the early church believed in freewill.

Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.

I object to being called by the name of any man. I do not follow men but Christ alone. Freewill was the belief of the earliest church and did not come from pelagus.

MB

 

[Yeshua1]

There is much confusion between Arminianism and semi-Pelagianiam. Arminianism teaches that God takes the first steps in salvation, but that the individual still must respond by free will prior to regeneration. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man takes the first steps to God, also by free will. The difference between the two is razor thin at times.

Many Christians are ignorant of the Calvinist, Arminian, semi-Pelagian arguments. All they know is that they have placed their faith in Christ. Their lives bear fruit, and that is as far as the theological arguments go.

Some, even on this board, are of the opinion we should not even debate these things; that it needlessly divides the Church. The truth is that the Church is already divided. Look at number of different denominations. Even within denominations and associations (like the SBC) there are intramural battles. Take it down to the local church level and you will see the same thing. Churches split all the time, and for less serious issues than doctrine. This is why doctrine matters. This is why the truth must always be contended for. It does not mean that each Christian must have a seminary degree or even join the debate. I believe they should be knowledgeable of these things, but even if they are not, others will be fighting for the truth.

Personally I think that those who reject Calvinism are either semi-Pelagians or Arminians whether they like the labels or not. Most Baptists would be Arminian; except maybe for free will Baptists who lean semi-Pelagian.

I also would tend to see it broden between those who hold to a denying of original Sin to those still holding to that truth, and to those who hold to a free will that needs no additional grace of God to decide for jesus, to those who hold to free will, but God still had to provide enabling grace first towards us!

For IF one holds to no original Sin imputed to us by God, that we have real free will as Adam had to respiond by ourselves, isn't that full blown Pel?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Personally I think that those who reject Calvinism are either semi-Pelagians or Arminians whether they like the labels or not. Most Baptists would be Arminian; except maybe for free will Baptists who lean semi-Pelagian.

Oh no you didnt!!!! These people are so hyper sensitive that, by making that declaration, you must of hurt their feelings.....now your in TROUBLE ...ohhhhh! :laugh:

But the board will like you.....conflict of this caliber creates arguments & thats good for participation....and thats good for readership!!!!

Congratulations, you made points. :thumbs::applause:

 

[Yeshua1]

So you to would place an inappropriate label on freewill when there is proof the early church believed in freewill.

Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.

I object to being called by the name of any man. I do not follow men but Christ alone. Freewill was the belief of the earliest church and did not come from pelagus.

MB

The "freewill" though that exaults us to being still able to decide for christ AOPART from the working of the Holy spirit towards us first is NOT what the Apostolic church taught!

 

[Herald]

So you to would place an inappropriate label on freewill when there is proof the early church believed in freewill.

Justin Martyr wrote 135-165 A.D. 1:177 "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." 1:177 "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain." 1:177 most of the page. The First Apology of Justin 43, 44.

I object to being called by the name of any man. I do not follow men but Christ alone. Freewill was the belief of the earliest church and did not come from pelagus.

MB

MB,

Do not fall into the trap of using the patristic age to defend doctrine. The post-Apostolic age was rife with error. They tolerated baptismal regeneration, the pre-existence of the soul, and modalism. The early church fathers were not a monolithic group.

I can appreciate your not wanting to be called by the name of a man. The great thing is that you do not have to accept it. I use those terms for categorical reasons. My use of them is not personal, but it also is not dependent on whether you accept them or not.

 

[MB]

I think you need face this:

1. In scriptures you have true believers who commit terrible sins...David stole a man's wife and had him killed. Yet before and after this he was a man who knew and loved God. Would you say that there is nothing good or special about David?

2. Every person, Christian or not, is a product of their time, and not all of them are succesful in overcoming the cultural norms around them. When Calvin approved of executions, he was acting as a civil authority carrying out what he believed to be the just punishment for breaking a law, which in that time, the penalty for most crimes was death. We would disagree with his assesment of the deserved penalty, of course, and condemn his actions, as we should. In the 1800's there were true christians who had slaves. A man in my church was converted for years before he really became strongly pro-life. Christians can be Christians and still be wrong about some things, even their whole lives.

Comparing David with Calvin is ridiculous. Calvin followed Augustine, David followed God. Huge difference. David suffered for his sin Calvin went on like nothing ever happened. God corrected David proof He believed in God. Calvin as far as I know was never corrected. No where have I read so far where Calvin ever repented or suffered for the murder of several citizens of Geneva for non belief. He was a monster no better than any murder on Death Rowe. It's not just the murder he committed but the reason that literally made me sick. He judged the Catholic Church for there murders and turned right around and did the same things for the same reasons. There was nothing good about John Calvin. He was a religious dictator and a murderer just like the Pope who hunted him.
MB