Arminian,semi-Pelagian...whatever;that's you.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Humanism of arminianism
- Thread starter Jarthur001
- Start date
- Status
Arminian,semi-Pelagian...whatever;that's you.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I'm your huckleberry.
We agree on this point whether you acknowledge it or not. The belief that grace isn't necessarily efficacious doesn't lesson its graciousness or change its authorship. To presume it does is just a pointless game of question begging.
I doubt any "Arminian" would word it this way, but I'll humor you...
We do affirm that GOD GRANTS man the ability to become reconciled by sending them the powerful Holy Spirit wrought message of reconciliation. And if you mean that all men are without excuse for their decision to reject God's revelation by the phrase, "man is given ample space to make up his mind," then take up your contention with Paul and his words in Romans 1.
Are you familiar with Jesus' audience and the historical context of these passages?
Jesus is speaking directly to Israel, who is at that time being temporarily judicially hardened (not born totally depraved as you ASSUME).
Now, I can provide support for my position that the audience is being judicially hardened, can you provide support that they were born totally depraved and thus unable to believe for that reason?
Here is one of many verses supporting my claims: Jesus speaking to this same audience just a few chapters later states: Jn 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
It has nothing to do with their being born in some kind of depraved and thus totally unable condition. It has to do with their being blinded to the truth so as to accomplish redemption for the world. This is addressed extensively throughout scripture.
UNLESS God intervenes, right? RIGHT! We both agree on that one. We just disagree about the efficacious nature of that divine intervention, thus these verses don't really address our point of contention, do they?
Where? When? I would love to meet the person who made such a declaration and join you in slapping them silly.
How about we avoid the straw-man fallacies when possible?
Agreed. But the good news of that passage is, "16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."
Interesting how Calvinists are fine with "all men" meaning everyone in the first case regarding condemnation, but not in the second case with regard to Christ's bring justification and life. Just doesn't seem consistent.
Robert Snow
New Member
There must be quite a difference in what Primitive Baptist practice. I know if a non-cal, like myself apologizes to Pinoybaptist, he is likely to reject it. In fact, he freely admits to not loving other Christians who he doesn't know or those who are not Primitive Baptist.
He stated to me in a previous post:
Notice how he is allowed to call me a hypocrite and nothing is done about it, he doesn't even get edited. I wonder what Dr. Bob would do if I said the same thing about Pinoybaptist? I would not do it because I don't think he is a hypocrite. He appears to be wrong more than he is right concerning theology, but I believe he is sincere in his error. Although the bible does say some pretty harsh words to a Christian who does not show love toward other Christians.
It is good to see that at all Christians in your churches are not so hard toward other believers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hyper calvinist, ignorant...whatever; that's you.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I'm your huckleberry.
We agree on this point whether you acknowledge it or not. The belief that grace isn't necessarily efficacious doesn't lesson its graciousness or change its authorship. To presume it does is just a pointless game of question begging.
I doubt any "Arminian" would word it this way, but I'll humor you...
We do affirm that GOD GRANTS man the ability to become reconciled by sending them the powerful Holy Spirit wrought message of reconciliation. And if you mean that all men are without excuse for their decision to reject God's revelation by the phrase, "man is given ample space to make up his mind," then take up your contention with Paul and his words in Romans 1.
Are you familiar with Jesus' audience and the historical context of these passages?
Jesus is speaking directly to Israel, who is at that time being temporarily judicially hardened (not born totally depraved as you ASSUME).
Now, I can provide support for my position that the audience is being judicially hardened, can you provide support that they were born totally depraved and thus unable to believe for that reason?
Here is one of many verses supporting my claims: Jesus speaking to this same audience just a few chapters later states: Jn 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
It has nothing to do with their being born in some kind of depraved and thus totally unable condition. It has to do with their being blinded to the truth so as to accomplish redemption for the world. This is addressed extensively throughout scripture.
UNLESS God intervenes, right? RIGHT! We both agree on that one. We just disagree about the efficacious nature of that divine intervention, thus these verses don't really address our point of contention, do they?
Where? When? I would love to meet the person who made such a declaration and join you in slapping them silly.
How about we avoid the straw-man fallacies when possible?
Agreed. But the good news of that passage is, "16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."
Interesting how Calvinists are fine with "all men" meaning everyone in the first case regarding condemnation, but not in the second case with regard to Christ's bring justification and life. Just doesn't seem consistent.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Hey there,Mr. Pejorative.Winman is in the category of Arminian to semi-Pelagian. I think he leans more toward the latter. You are Arminianistic. You still aren't quite as orthodox as a true Arminian. Denying the authority of Romans 5 is a big problem for you.
Calling me a hyper-Calvinist is a false charge (as is normal for you). You can be the Peter Lumpkins of the BB. Since James White and Robert Reymond are called hyper-Calvinists with no regard toward historical theology, I'll take it as a badge of honor realizing that it's the best you can do with scant facts at your disposal. It's easy for for to throw that theological swear-word. But I don't qualify as you well know.
Boy, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. I don't recall ever calling you anything (but perhaps I've forgotten) and you almost call me a Pelagian. Anyone who has read my many posts knows that is untrue.
That's OK, I see these false accusations as evidence you are losing the debate.
So, sling away, people are not stupid, they can see what you are doing, and they understand why as well.
Jarthur001
Active Member
okI'm your huckleberry.
Not so fast. We need to deal with OS first. Arminians are all over the board on this one. You do indeed sound more and more like a REAL Arminian and not the Pelagianites that post on this board.
So, how do you address OS? You can just say the name of the theologian and I should know your views. I'm not going into the examplism on this thread, because this is not about Pelagians. A real Arminian does not deny OS, but they do address it many ways.
This is the 1st step of grace toward salvation....as they see it.
Wesleyan Arminianism, left Calvinist teaching and went back to RCC's Erasmus prevailing grace. Wesleyan theology insists that man after the fall is able to desire the good and choose salvation. To uses Erasmus' example, ....." a sinner not yet regenerated can and does desire the delicious apple offered by the Father".
Erasmus puts it this way..
LINK
This is why SOME....not all...call this theology humanism
I don't follow you here. If you mean GR you are missing the mark. If Not GR, please point me to the verse and make your point.
You mean John? Oh my yes. I know the book very well.
He was indeed. But the words that are in the same passage apply to Jews and others. Like in the same graph he say..I am the bread of life. Jesus is the bread of life for me too.
We the NT Saints are to seek the OT and find Christ there. This is what Christ is doing as he goes on and says...
"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
That is not to the jews only my friend.
Now wait a moment. Are you a Arminian or semipelagian? If you deny OS you cannot be Arminian.
Do you believe I would believe a doctrine that is not supported in Scripture? TD is the most supported doctrine in the Bible other than the doctrine of God.
1st off, when we get to chapter 12, we have moved to the 3rd section of the book. John gives the outline of the book in chapter one. I was about to give you the right view here, but maybe I do not understand you so lets be clear.
12;39 says.. Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
John is giving a cause here. What are you saying the cause is?
Chapter 12? I believe this is what you mean. I would say that it has everything to do with a prophet's words. Yes, they are TD. The TD did not happen here. The reason why they did not believe is given here. Check it out...
When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, >>>>
so that......ESV
This happened so that...CEV
This was to fulfill .....common eng.
that the saying .....21st cen
So that what Isaiah the prophet ...amp
.because of........
the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
"Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them."
Now what is this saying? The gospel does more than save. The unbelief is called a marvellous work, and a wonder, of God...
Isa. 29:14.
therefore, behold, I will again
do wonderful things with this people,
with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden."
and then 29:16
Shall the potter (GOD) be regarded as the clay, (MAN) that the thing made should say of its maker, (GOD)
>>>> MAN SAYS..."He did not make me";.....
Or can man say to God, you did not make me blind?
Answer..NO
>>>>>MAN SAYS......or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Or can man say to God you have not made me with no understanding?
ANSWER...NO
Look....like I said before, I will go over arminianism because this is what the thread is about. BUT....if you want to talk about semipelagianism, please start a new thread
Jarthur001
Active Member
I do not see why semi-Pelagian is allowed on the BAPTIST BOARD.
Arminian...yes. That should be allowed. Semi-Pelagian...I say no.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Winman, please tell me what these words mean to you...
1) Arminian
2) semi-Pelagian
3) Pelagian
4) Hyper-Calvinism
Jarthur001
Active Member
what is...
1) Hyper calvinist
and why do you think Rippon is ignorant?
Remember....God is love.:godisgood:
Robert Snow
New Member
I don't think those who hold to limited atonement (hyper-Calvinists) should be allowed to post. But, since they are, why not allow the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons to post. It makes about as much sense to me.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Robert...
You see, that is your problem. You don't know what hyper-Calvinism is. 5 pointers are CALVINIST. HYPER goes BEYOND the 5 points.
Do you understand?
Its about us SHARING THE GOSPEL
At the link above you will find....
George Croft
"Should it be asked, whether all Calvinists differ from Arminians, only in reference to effectual grace and perseverance, it is frankly acknowledged, that there are some who differ from them in other points. These persons are generally styled High-Calvinists, or Hyper-Calvinists. Hyper signifies above, and Hyper-Calvinists are so called, because their system is above genuine Calvinism. The Hyper-Calvinist holds the particular design of Christ's death, but denies its general design; whereas moderate or modern Calvinists, as they are called,. hold both." [1]
Sinclair Ferguson
"An exaggerated or imbalanced type of Reformed theology associated with Strict and Particular Baptists of English origin and with Dutch-American Reformed groups. Originating in the 18th century, it has always been the theology of a minority, which today is extremely small. It is a system of theology framed to exalt the honor and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners... It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect." [2]
R. T. Kendall
"Hyper-Calvinism. This is a spirit that militates against evangelism and the free offer of the gospel. It has its roots in High-Calvinism but goes beyond it. Many High-Calvinists would still hold to the free offer of the gospel - that you should offer the gospel to everyone even though Christ did not die for everyone. Hyper-Calvinism holds that one must not say "Christ died for you" lest one should not be telling the truth. The most that the hyper-Calvinist feels that he can do is to say "Christ died for sinners" and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Hyper-Calvinism does not essentially differ from high-Calvinism except in actual practice, which is why I define Hyper-Calvinism as a spirit." [3]
Peter Toon
Peter Toon states that Hyper-Calvinism "made no distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, and tried to deduce the duty of men from what it taught concerning the secret, eternal decrees of God. This led to the notion that grace must only be offered to those for whom it was intended." [4]
Curt Daniel
Curt Daniel defines Hyper-Calvinism as "...that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret over the revealed will and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them."... it is the rejection of the word offer in connection with evangelism for supposedly Calvinistic reasons... the only real and tangible thing which differentiates the Hyper from the High-Calvinist is the word offer." [5]
Iain Murray
"Hyper-Calvinism in its attempt to square all truth with God's purpose to save the elect, denies that there is a universal command to repent and believe, and asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. In other words, it is those who have been spiritually quickened to seek a Saviour and not those who are in the death of unbelief and indifference, to whom the exhortations of the Gospel must be addressed. In this way a scheme was devised for restricting the Gospel to those who there is reason to suppose are elect." [6]
Phil Johnson
"A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either: Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect." [7]
David Engelsma
"Hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher’s addressing the call of the gospel, "repent and believe on Christ crucified," only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation." [8]
Last edited by a moderator:
An Arminian is someone who believes in free will that believes can turn from belief and lose salvation. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS.
A Pelagian is someone who can seek God without God's grace. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS.
I am not sure of the distinction between a semi-Pelagian and Pelagian and do not especially care. I do not allow others to define what I must believe.
A Hyper-Calvinist is someone who is consistent with the 5 points of Calvinism.
A Calvinist is someone who is embarrassed by the consistent 5 point Hyper-Calvinist, and is not consistent with their own doctrine. They are a "fence rider".
I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THESE VIEWS.
I'm sorry but the above displays and incredible amount of ignorance and a confirmed lack of study.
I am quite well known on here for debating my Calvinistic/Reformed brethren and my theological designation is best described as the 'Non-Cal' position, I am quite within my rights in the above declaration.
I would encourage you to view an earlier thread I created (months back) on this very subject. The OP is here
And you can find the thread called "Hyper-Calvinism and it's beliefs" here.
In that thread, though a few Cals disagreed with parts, I actually obtained quite a number of mails from other Reformed members thanking me for using Reformed sources and works to spell out what a Hyper Calvinist really is and is about in the views.
PLEASE become familiar with them at least somewhat. Thus when the aspersion of such, from you, might be cast, you might cast it rightly... unlike above.
I apologize for it being so harsh but I get SO tired of this word being tossed around toward peoples view and it not even come CLOSE to truth. Holding to the 5 points does not make one a Hyper.. it establishes them as holding to mainstream Calvinistic doctrines or mainstream Reformed doctrines.
Robert Snow
New Member
You may be correct, but it's like so many things we deal with in theology. Not everyone uses the same definitions. I can only go by what I have been told is the truth. As soon as I adapt another definition, someone else will say that that is incorrect.
Concerning Calvinism, the Christians that I discuss theology with at my church have more problems with Limited Atonement than with all the other points combined.
I just don't see it in the bible!
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Thank you! Allan your correction of Winman is refreshing. I don't know that he'll heed your words, but thank you for standing up for what is right and what is not.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Of the ones you provided, these quotes are the best of the lot. There are other cabable men who have defined it well also.
That's for sure! There's been a lot of dishonesty regarding the meaning of hyper-Calvinism through the centuries.
That's a given.
Would that be the Jefferson Bible?
- Status