Historic VS Contemporary Arminianism

[webdog]

Do you deny some here deny progonal sin, deny that we were killed spiritually bythe fall, and hold to us still ahving SAME free will as Adam once had, that we are basically innocent at birth, thabn get condemned after knowing/realising we have sinned?

I've answered each and every one of these qurstions for you at least a half dozen times given which name you have gone by here on this board. I refuse to do it again. Better yet, post one person that believes what you said.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I pulled this out of a more detailed commentary by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ Puratan's Mind. He states:

"Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians"

What do you think...is this true?

I've been considering responding to your Op for days....It's a good question which requires some real thought IMO...Your actual "question" isn't very clear, truth be told...but in conjunction with your previous thread...I think you are deserving of some response...here goes:

The article you cite is confusing inasmuch as technically, he is "correct" but, he is only "correct" for the wrong reasons.
He is absolutely right, on the one hand, that "classical" or "historic" Arminianism is decidedly different from the "Arminianism" (he calls it) commonly taught in many evangelical circles today.....

This is no secret. Arminian Theologian Roger Olson has for YEARS. belabored the explanation that in this modern era, there are not many "Arminians" out there, but what he considers to be a sort of "folk" religion more reminiscent in his mind of "Pelagianism" or "semi-Pelagianism" (so-called)...
What we have commonly in this country is something of a hybrid "Wesleyan"/Charles Finney thingy...........which is not confessional but "folk".......like a guitar. A "guitar" does not exist in any symphony orchestra, it's a "folk" instrument..So also much of the modern theology taught in many American Churches.

What they are NOT though...is "Arminian".....

I have spent (or wasted) numerous hours reading and re-reading the countless articles on this guys cite....and frankly, I have NEVER actually encountered a more un-informed and un-helpful individual as this one. This guy simply doesn't know what he is talking about. His errors TRULY are innumerable, and his utter confusion between what might properly be linked between "Arminianism" and "Semi-Pelagianism" or "Pelagianism" (or whatever link he wants to create in his mind).....is incurable.

I would suggest an alternative source personally, because frankly, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

However, in conjunction with the previous questions you have asked about the modern practical Theology extant in America....there is some sense in which he is by sheer stupid accident (and I mean truly stupid) correct... Modern American Theology is NOT commonly either "Calvinist" or "Arminian"....it is NEITHER...it is a "folk" sort of soteriology not particularly married to either system. In other words....Roger Olson is right, and subsequently, so is this guy, but only by happy accident, since having read numerous links and articles by this moron...he may be the most pathetic wannabe Theologian I have ever read.

I would advise a different cite from which to glean knowledge....even the "Founders.org" people (I am no fan) at least aren't NEARLY so ill-informed as this guy.

The short answer is that within pre-existing Theological circles...no form of "Arminianism" is growing at all, in point of fact, I would argue that "Calvinism" is the growing trend within the conservative theological circles. However, there remains some "growth" in churches in the US which hold to something of the hybrid "Semi-Pelagian"/Finney-esque....theology so extant in the last 150 years or so. THAT theology is not really either "Arminian" nor "Calvinist" at all. It isn't really a "Theology" of any kind at all really, it's just a folksy hodge-podge of "it doesn't really matter" to be honest with you.

But it is neither "Arminian" nor "Calvinist"........and the implied link to Pelagius in this article simply does not exist.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is a very good article,and it would be better if those today would make a biblical attempt to strain out the good parts of the soup!

It ISN'T a "GOOD" article Icon.....it's a VERY stupid one. Hence my objecion that you can't possibly distinguish between "good" Calvinist Theology from utterly "moronic" Calvisim..........Trust me my friend:

1.) There are "stupid" Arminians
2.) There are "stupid" Calvinists
3.) There are "stupid" Arminian articles
4.) There are "stupid" Calvinist articles

This particular Calvinist article was sheerly stupid...I linked and read this moron for countless wasted hours...his articles get NO BETTER.

You are wise to say "good" about Lorrainne Boettner, a "good" Calvinist...and you are wise to link to B.B. Warfield, another smart Calvinist...there are numerous others...

But you lose ALL credibility, when you say this article was "GOOD"...it wasn't...it was rather stupid, and having read the bulk of everything he has to say on his cite....he doesn't improve one iota:

He is a "stupid" Calvinist.....and YOU DON'T KNOW the difference.

 

[Iconoclast]

It ISN'T a "GOOD" article Icon.....it's a VERY stupid one. Hence my objecion that you can't possibly distinguish between "good" Calvinist Theology from utterly "moronic" Calvisim..........Trust me my friend:

1.) There are "stupid" Arminians
2.) There are "stupid" Calvinists
3.) There are "stupid" Arminian articles
4.) There are "stupid" Calvinist articles

This particular Calvinist article was sheerly stupid...I linked and read this moron for countless wasted hours...his articles get NO BETTER.

You are wise to say "good" about Lorrainne Boettner, a "good" Calvinist...and you are wise to link to B.B. Warfield, another smart Calvinist...there are numerous others...

But you lose ALL credibility, when you say this article was "GOOD"...it wasn't...it was rather stupid, and having read the bulk of everything he has to say on his cite....he doesn't improve one iota:

He is a "stupid" Calvinist.....and YOU DON'T KNOW the difference.

HOS,

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon would shred your ideas in short order without working up a sweat. How you casually dismiss them as if they have nothing to say is incredulus.

He lives down in either Jupiter Florida, or Coconut Creek. Why not take a ride and dazzle him with your ideas and see how that works out. Let me know how that face to face meeting goes.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HOS,

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon would shred your ideas in short order without working up a sweat.

He would not....What I defy you to do, is demonstrate specifically, why and how he would. If you could not suggest why or how he might do so, then, plausibly, you have no defense for why this statement of yours is true or why you state it.

How you casually dismiss them as if they have nothing to say is incredulus.

I have done neither....I have spent hours reading his articles...linking them, reading them, and counter-researching them....I did not "casually" as you lyingly claim...and you are LYING to do so...dismiss ANYTHING...I READ EVERY link to his own personall articles on the cite...did YOU???... I know you didn't...therfore, I absolutely, cannot be accused of "casually" dismissing anything....you "casually" dismiss any non-Calvinist you debate with, but, what's new?...You don't learn anything EVER...Remember, you are here to offer "correction" not to learn..I read EVERY hyper-link to his own work on that website, Icon...and I know for a FACT you did NOT!!!

I read EVERY ONE!!!

I demand that you claim before God and man that you have, because you haven't...I know it, and smart people know it, and you still sound like a man who doesn't know the difference between the "Icon/Old Regular" version of a Calvinist...and a smart one...like say...oh....Gordon C. Clarke..whom your compadre lambasts... :laugh::laugh:

It is not in fact the case that you have done EITHER one. I know this as incontravertibly true. You have not thouroughly researched his work and read the bulk of his own articles on the topic or it's rejoinders... If you had, than you would have a reasoned argument for why you defend him, and you do not, nor do you pose one.

He lives down in either Jupiter Florida, or Coconut Creek. Why not take a ride and dazzle him with your ideas and see how that works out. lme know how that face to fet ace meeting goes

.
Better yet....why don't YOU come down and talk super-stud..You still don't know a "good" article from a "bad" one....you said the article was "good" it wasn't...

It was a "stupid" article...and you still don't know the difference....if you did know, you would explain why, but you don't.
You fool no one.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

HOS,


He would not....What I defy you to do, is demonstrate specifically, why and how he would. If you could not suggest why or how he might do so, then, plausibly, you have no defense for why this statement of yours is true or why you state it.

I have done neither....I have spent hours reading his articles...linking them, reading them, and counter-researching them....I did not "casually" as you lyingly claim...and you are LYING to do so...dismiss ANYTHING...I READ EVERY link to his own personall articles on the cite...did YOU???... I know you didn't...therfore, I absolutely, cannot be accused of "casually" dismissing anything....you "casually" dismiss any non-Calvinist you debate with, but, what's new?...You don't learn anything EVER...Remember, you are here to offer "correction" not to learn..I read EVERY hyper-link to his own work on that website, Icon...and I know for a FACT you did NOT!!!

I read EVERY ONE!!!

I demand that you claim before God and man that you have, because you haven't...I know it, and smart people know it, and you still sound like a man who doesn't know the difference between the "Icon/Old Regular" version of a Calvinist...and a smart one...like say...oh....Gordon C. Clarke..whom your compadre lambasts... :laugh::laugh:

It is not in fact the case that you have done EITHER one. I know this as incontravertibly true. You have not thouroughly researched his work and read the bulk of his own articles on the topic or it's rejoinders... If you had, than you would have a reasoned argument for why you defend him, and you do not, nor do you pose one.
.
Better yet....why don't YOU come down and talk super-stud..You still don't know a "good" article from a "bad" one....you said the article was "good" it wasn't...

It was a "stupid" article...and you still don't know the difference....if you did know, you would explain why, but you don't.
You fool no one.

Honestly HoS, if you can criticize Dr. C. Matthew McMahon & his body of work as stupid, you can easily contact him & tell him where you think he is erroneous. & because he base of operation is in Florida, why not test yourself & reach out to him.....test your metal. Look if your argument is iron clad, perhaps you can change his mind .....he owns The Puritan Mind (a Calvinist Forum) & a recording studio & writes books so perhaps you can get him to retract his previous statements.

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

He would not....What I defy you to do, is demonstrate specifically, why and how he would. If you could not suggest why or how he might do so, then, plausibly, you have no defense for why this statement of yours is true or why you state it.[/QUOTE]

I READ

EVERY link to his own personall articles on the cite...did YOU???... I know you didn't.

.

I read EVERY hyper-link to his own work on that website, Icon...and I know for a FACT you did NOT!!!

I read EVERY ONE!!!

I have never said i have read everything he writes.You read his blog...good.
I do have hours of his actual teaching and lectures that perhaps you do not have......so you are droning on and on without the facts as usual.You do not know what I know or do not know....but you seek to grandstand for eyeservice i suppose.
As he is not a baptist at this time there are things we are not in agreement on.That does not give me, or you for that matter the right to take a cheap shot at him when he cannot reply to your lame attack.
It is not as if you take an article or position he offers,and seek to interact on it. You just offer an unsubstantiated attack on his knowledge.
I first became aware of him by actually opposing something of his that was in print.I wrote directly to him and asked for a response.
He is very capable of offering on his stated positions. To call him such names seems to indicate you cannot really address his positions biblically.
If you have read him that much, call him on the phone and see if you can present your case.
Have you done that at all??? He is very much alive and able to speak for himself.

The fact that you attack him personally does not speak well for your supposed positions which are as of now kept secret,except for some random fragments...

I demand that you claim before God and man that you have, because you haven't.

..I know it,

You just assume to much, and you do not know what you do not know:wavey:

Better yet....why don't YOU come down and talk super-stud..You still don't know a "good" article from a "bad" one....you said the article was "good" it wasn't...

Do not worry my friend...that day will come...I will find that Petro, as I am in one now...only it is in Ohio, not Fla......going to Lansing,MI.

It was a "stupid" article...and you still don't know the difference....if you did know, you would explain why, but you don't.
You fool no one.

:laugh: OK.....you can be the resident Siskel and Ebert and review all articles , and give a thumbs up , or thumbs down...knock yourself out:laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The man's article was simply foolish. This strange notion, that someone who publishes a public article is owed some kind of personal visist from me to criticize it is unusual at best. Since when do you Icon, for instance, feel the need to contact Roger Olson personally? You have attacked him before and not (I assume) felt the need to have an elongated discourse with him have you?

Does EVERY person who has a criticism of McMahon owe him a visit??? I think he'd be a rather busy man if EVERY person who thinks his articles stupid gave him a call wouldn't it?

I gave my advice in answer to EWF's question. My advice was, essentially he's right (in a weird way) for the wrong reasons, but, generally, he is probably the worst source I have seen.

I'll tell you this, if I were going to create a "spoof" Calvinist website, I would make it JUST like this one. As far as a Theology website goes, this is to Biblical Theology what "the Onion" is for journalism.

Did you guys READ this guys articles? I think given what he has to say about Arminians and Arminianism etc....opens him up to criticism. His continuous referrences to Arminianism as "lies from the pit of hell" blah blah blah. Frankly, I don't think a guy who is so VERY vicious towards fellow Christian is OWED a polite rejoinder from every critic he has. He has some kind of ridiculous disparragement like this every third sentence. If this is the kind of source you actually take seriously to learn from..........then you are beyond helping.

 

[Winman]

The man's article was simply foolish. This strange notion, that someone who publishes a public article is owed some kind of personal visist from me to criticize it is unusual at best. Since when do you Icon, for instance, feel the need to contact Roger Olson personally? You have attacked him before and not (I assume) felt the need to have an elongated discourse with him have you?

Does EVERY person who has a criticism of McMahon owe him a visit??? I think he'd be a rather busy man if EVERY person who thinks his articles stupid gave him a call wouldn't it?

I gave my advice in answer to EWF's question. My advice was, essentially he's right (in a weird way) for the wrong reasons, but, generally, he is probably the worst source I have seen.

I'll tell you this, if I were going to create a "spoof" Calvinist website, I would make it JUST like this one. As far as a Theology website goes, this is to Biblical Theology what "the Onion" is for journalism.

Did you guys READ this guys articles? I think given what he has to say about Arminians and Arminianism etc....opens him up to criticism. His continuous referrences to Arminianism as "lies from the pit of hell" blah blah blah. Frankly, I don't think a guy who is so VERY vicious towards fellow Christian is OWED a polite rejoinder from every critic he has. He has some kind of ridiculous disparragement like this every third sentence. If this is the kind of source you actually take seriously to learn from..........then you are beyond helping.

Is this the guy who is dressed as a Puritan? :tongue3:

I laughed when I read that article, that guy simply hates anyone who is not a Calvinist. He did not write one thing in that article that refutes Arminianism.

Simply assuming you are correct does not make it so.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The man's article was simply foolish. This strange notion, that someone who publishes a public article is owed some kind of personal visist from me to criticize it is unusual at best. Since when do you Icon, for instance, feel the need to contact Roger Olson personally? You have attacked him before and not (I assume) felt the need to have an elongated discourse with him have you?

Does EVERY person who has a criticism of McMahon owe him a visit??? I think he'd be a rather busy man if EVERY person who thinks his articles stupid gave him a call wouldn't it?

I gave my advice in answer to EWF's question. My advice was, essentially he's right (in a weird way) for the wrong reasons, but, generally, he is probably the worst source I have seen.

I'll tell you this, if I were going to create a "spoof" Calvinist website, I would make it JUST like this one. As far as a Theology website goes, this is to Biblical Theology what "the Onion" is for journalism.

Did you guys READ this guys articles? I think given what he has to say about Arminians and Arminianism etc....opens him up to criticism. His continuous referrences to Arminianism as "lies from the pit of hell" blah blah blah. Frankly, I don't think a guy who is so VERY vicious towards fellow Christian is OWED a polite rejoinder from every critic he has. He has some kind of ridiculous disparragement like this every third sentence. If this is the kind of source you actually take seriously to learn from..........then you are beyond helping.

HoS.... have you read his? If you consider that McMahon is disrespecting you & making outlandish statements about Arminism, then I believe you have to contend with him in order to set the record straight

Here is one example of his Arminian viewpoint.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/the-“god”-of-arminianism-is-not-worshippable/

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HoS.... have you read his? If you consider that McMahon is disrespecting you & making outlandish statements about Arminism, then I believe you have to contend with him in order to set the record straight

Here is one example of his Arminian viewpoint.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/the-“god”-of-arminianism-is-not-worshippable/

I've read that article: Quite frankly....I don't even take this guy seriously. This article is one of the reasons no one should. His writings are so laughable, that they're not even insulting. If I didn't know better, I would actually think this site was a spoof on Calvinism.

Look, I was merely suggesting that you seek other souces of information. You can take that or leave it.

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

The man's article was simply foolish. This strange notion, that someone who publishes a public article is owed some kind of personal visist from me to criticize it is unusual at best

.

Well ...he lives by you, so why is the request so strange?If you have read what you claimed to have read, you could....help him out:thumbsup:

Since when do you Icon, for instance, feel the need to contact Roger Olson personally?

I have no problem to speak with Roger Olson, except I have not found him in Oregon, or Washington state.

You have attacked him before and not (I assume) felt the need to have an elongated discourse with him have you?

I believe Skan posted a link or two of his, that I read and reacted with.If you claim him for a "good source" you are in trouble. I posted his statements and showed why they do not fly.....you have avoided both links that ewf posted.
They are accurate and you and winman will just mock rather than interact with them.....but we have seen this before:wavey:

Does EVERY person who has a criticism of McMahon owe him a visit???

not everyone lives near there...I might get to meet with him sometime.
Not everyone called him names as you have.Why would he really want to meet with you anyhow:laugh: I would pay to see it though.
Hos...have you ever met with any of these men...face to face?

I think he'd be a rather busy man if EVERY person who thinks his articles stupid gave him a call wouldn't it?

All of these men are busy...so if you intended to meet, you would have to get control over yourself so as to be taken seriously....This bluster and name calling does not go anywhere!

I gave my advice in answer to EWF's question. My advice was, essentially he's right (in a weird way) for the wrong reasons, but, generally, he is probably the worst source I have seen.

Take the second link and show how bad it is...since you claim it is so...

I'll tell you this, if I were going to create a "spoof" Calvinist website, I would make it JUST like this one. As far as a Theology website goes, this is to Biblical Theology what "the Onion" is for journalism.

lol..ok...while humorous...you offer nothing of substance.

Did you guys READ this guys articles?

I have not read that many....not that I would not, I just have a ton of reading I am working through....I have listened to many of his lectures however.I do not agree with everything, but I do not have to.He is not one of my main sources...but he is a christian brother.

I think given what he has to say about Arminians and Arminianism etc....opens him up to criticism.

That is fair to say...but be critical of specfic content, not childish name calling.
You have barely offered anything on this.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HeirofSalvation
Well ...he lives by you, so why is the request so strange?If you have read what you claimed to have read, you could....help him out:thumbsup:

It's that you insist I somehow OWE him a face to face visit which is so strange to me....and no, I could NOT help him.

I believe Skan posted a link or two of his, that I read and reacted with.If you claim him for a "good source" you are in trouble.

You have no capacity for discernment....I only mentioned Olson because he speaks specifically to the thread OP...Olson is quite right about what he says about the trends in US churches, and frankly, the statement I referred to by Olson is in agreement with a lot of what McMahon says in this article.

you have avoided both links that ewf posted.

False...I have read them both....and the second one, before he even posted it, I mentioned that above..already.

They are accurate and you and winman will just mock rather than interact with them.....but we have seen this before

They are irrelevant to the OP Icon....no one has suggested we "interract" with them either. The thread OP is NOT about whether or not the God of Arminianism is "un-worshipable"...EWF has not asked that we respond to it.

.Why would he really want to meet with you anyhow

He wouldn't Icon....nor would I care to meet with him, again, this is why your request I do so is so very strange...do you listen to yourself?

Hos...have you ever met with any of these men...face to face?

This statement is non-sense, we are only talking about ONE man, who are "these men"????

All of these men are busy...

Who are "these men?"....if you mean reasonable and respectable Theologians and Scriptural commentators, then I would not classify Mcmahon as such. That's my point, and it's a bald opinion. That is all it is. McMahon sounds like a caricature of himself, or don't you notice? He reads like a 22 year-old know-it-all Neo-Calvie blogger.

so if you intended to meet,

I don't. I never suggested I intended to, you aren't making any sense.

Take the second link and show how bad it is...since you claim it is so...

It is self-evident to anyone who reads it with a reasonable mind, ICON. You cannot see it, I am not surprised.

That is fair to say...but be critical of specfic content, not childish name calling.

It is not necessarily "childish" to call a stupid article "stupid"...you just dislike it. I wouldn't say that about Warfied or Edwards or James White or many other Calvinists...because they don't publically embarrass themselves this guy does. He is out of his league to be publishing publically. Honestly, your problem is that you see this article as "good" only because he agrees with you Theologically. You don't seem to be able to tell good reading from bad reading. You think ALL Calvies sound just dandy and ALL Arminians are of no use. McMahon would too it seems...It is why I don't take him seriously.

You have barely offered anything on this.

Because it isn't my thread. I wasn't previously asked to: I just stated a bare opinion, ICON....how do you "prove" or "disprove" a bare opinion?...in point of fact, you called it a "good" article prior to my disagreeing with you, you also have not stated what YOU think to be so "good" about it either!....... Learn something about what constitutes "burden of proof" ICON.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's that you insist I somehow OWE him a face to face visit which is so strange to me....and no, I could NOT help him.

You have no capacity for discernment....I only mentioned Olson because he speaks specifically to the thread OP...Olson is quite right about what he says about the trends in US churches, and frankly, the statement I referred to by Olson is in agreement with a lot of what McMahon says in this article.

False...I have read them both....and the second one, before he even posted it, I mentioned that above..already.

They are irrelevant to the OP Icon....no one has suggested we "interract" with them either. The thread OP is NOT about whether or not the God of Arminianism is "un-worshipable"...EWF has not asked that we respond to it.

He wouldn't Icon....nor would I care to meet with him, again, this is why your request I do so is so very strange...do you listen to yourself?

This statement is non-sense, we are only talking about ONE man, who are "these men"????

Who are "these men?"....if you mean reasonable and respectable Theologians and Scriptural commentators, then I would not classify Mcmahon as such. That's my point, and it's a bald opinion. That is all it is. McMahon sounds like a caricature of himself, or don't you notice? He reads like a 22 year-old know-it-all Neo-Calvie blogger.

I don't. I never suggested I intended to, you aren't making any sense.

It is self-evident to anyone who reads it with a reasonable mind, ICON. You cannot see it, I am not surprised.

It is not necessarily "childish" to call a stupid article "stupid"...you just dislike it. I wouldn't say that about Warfied or Edwards or James White or many other Calvinists...because they don't publically embarrass themselves this guy does. He is out of his league to be publishing publically. Honestly, your problem is that you see this article as "good" only because he agrees with you Theologically. You don't seem to be able to tell good reading from bad reading. You think ALL Calvies sound just dandy and ALL Arminians are of no use. McMahon would too it seems...It is why I don't take him seriously.

Because it isn't my thread. I wasn't previously asked to: I just stated a bare opinion, ICON....how do you "prove" or "disprove" a bare opinion?...in point of fact, you called it a "good" article prior to my disagreeing with you, you also have not stated what YOU think to be so "good" about it either!....... Learn something about what constitutes "burden of proof" ICON.

maybe I am wrong on this, but would hold that my big problems in theology are NOT with 'historical Arms", its with the viewpoint that somehow man is basically still functioning to a degree spiritually, and that free will is intact enough todecide/reject jesus by ourselves.period...

As Arms and I DO agree that we are spiritually dead, having Original Sin on us, and that NONE can get saved apart from God FIRST applying saving grace towards sinners...

Where we differ is the whom that grace is applied, and if resistable or not!

 

[thomas15]

Is this the guy who is dressed as a Puritan? :tongue3:

I laughed when I read that article, that guy simply hates anyone who is not a Calvinist. He did not write one thing in that article that refutes Arminianism.

Simply assuming you are correct does not make it so.

I really don't have a dog in this fight and have no desire to read the article linked at the OP. But the whole time I'm reading this thread I'm thinking wouldn't it be fun to read an Arminian written companion article comparing the real historical puritians with the new and improved modern north american puritains?

I personally find that I agree more with what is taught by calvinists than the arminian side of things but in an effort to broaden my horizons have read some arminian works. One such book comes to mind by the late Mildred Bangs Wynkoop Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology. After a few false starts I finally made some headway in this small book and while Wynkoop has failed to gain a convert and in places really makes me cringe, I must say that the little lady overall shreads the Augustine/Calvinist template. It would be interesting to see someone like her contrast historical/modern puritains.

 

[Yeshua1]

I really don't have a dog in this fight and have no desire to read the article linked at the OP. But the whole time I'm reading this thread I'm thinking wouldn't it be fun to read an Arminian written companion article comparing the real historical puritians with the new and improved modern north american puritains?

I personally find that I agree more with what is taught by calvinists than the arminian side of things but in an effort to broaden my horizons have read some arminian works. One such book comes to mind by the late Mildred Bangs Wynkoop Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology. After a few false starts I finally made some headway in this small book and while Wynkoop has failed to gain a convert and in places really makes me cringe, I must say that the little lady overall shreads the Augustine/Calvinist template. It would be interesting to see someone like her contrast historical/modern puritains.

One of the main reasons that calvinism in regard to Sotierology made more sense to me was that they see the death of jesus provide a definite salvation for some, while Arminianism sees his death providing salvation for potentially all, but also potentially none!

Seemed that God would be "wasting" the death of christ if he hadto entrust who got saved to our 'freewill" moral decisions!

 

[thomas15]

One of the main reasons that calvinism in regard to Sotierology made more sense to me was that they see the death of jesus provide a definite salvation for some, while Arminianism sees his death providing salvation for potentially all, but also potentially none!

Seemed that God would be "wasting" the death of christ if he hadto entrust who got saved to our 'freewill" moral decisions!

On the other hand, Calvinism retains a modified but Biblically dubious RCC ecclesiology.

In my personal experience, while I give God 100% of the credit for saving me from a life of sin, the human messenger who was the first to deliver the good news to thomas15 and several members of my family was a Major in the Salvation Army. Very much the Arminian. And it wasn't the words coming out of his mouth that made me take notice, it was the deeds of his hand and the kindness of his heart.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

On the other hand, Calvinism retains a modified but Biblically dubious RCC ecclesiology.

In my personal experience, while I give God 100% of the credit for saving me from a life of sin, the human messenger who was the first to deliver the good news to thomas15 and several members of my family was a Major in the Salvation Army. Very much the Arminian. And it wasn't the words coming out of his mouth that made me take notice, it was the deeds of his hand and the kindness of his heart.

Good .....and I get that same kindness from a friend who is a Old School Baptist who holds to Sovereign Grace theology. As he stated to me recently when there was come food fights in here..... We are Saved Christians in here (meaning BB) we ought not be pulling each other apart & we should be the happiest people on the planet. We have to love & treasure those people no matter what camp they are in theologically.:thumbsup:

 

[percho]

One of the main reasons that calvinism in regard to Sotierology made more sense to me was that they see the death of jesus provide a definite salvation for some, while Arminianism sees his death providing salvation for potentially all, but also potentially none!

Seemed that God would be "wasting" the death of christ if he hadto entrust who got saved to our 'freewill" moral decisions!

Kind of as Paul stated here?

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal 2:21

Also beings to mind another thought. In Arminianism would it not be almost as easy to keep the law unto salvation as it would be to believe in (whatever that means) Christ unto salvation?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Kind of as Paul stated here?

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal 2:21

Also beings to mind another thought. In Arminianism would it not be almost as easy to keep the law unto salvation as it would be to believe in (whatever that means) Christ unto salvation?

NO...it wouldn't...in "Arminianism" it is not even POSSIBLE to "keep the law" except for God's grace...you know the "depravity thing???"?" whether it be saving grace or no, it is all of God....But, no-one on this board understands actual Arminian Theology one whit...so why bother...certainly, the moron who wrote the articles referenced in this thread cannot distinguish between Arminianism or Pelagianism...so why bother??