Is there anyone interest in an organized discussion?

[The Biblicist]

I have been considering starting a discussion on Calvinism. I would like the discussion to have some ground rules and definitions settled on beforehand to help keep the discussion productive. It would probably also be helpful to breakdown the topic into smaller issues and look at them in order. My question right now is this: is anyone interested in such a discussion?

I will state beforehand that I am not a Calvinist, but I hesitate to call myself an Arminian. I consider myself open minded and try always to conform my beliefs to the word of God. So, if you can prove it to me in the Bible, I will believe it.

I realize that it is unlikely that anyone's mind will be changed, but that is no reason to not try.

Sounds good to me. I would enjoy entering into a common sense exegetical based discussion. I don't care to enter into a Jumping joe discussion where those discussing this issue simply jump from text to text especially when they cannot honestly and properly deal with any given text. If we can keep away from pitting one text against another text as the response for dealing with any given text and context. If we can drop all the name calling and negative insinuations. I think none are guiltless and so I am not condemning everyone except myself.

I am willing to commit to all of these things. Are you?

 

[Revmitchell]

How about avoiding one line posts like some people we both know do ?

When people post things that are worth more than one line I do.

 

[BobRyan]

Are there really any Arminians on this board?

I am Arminian.

So that means no OSAS -- free will all the way, because God sovereignly enables choice for the unregenerate by His supernatural drawing of "all mankind unto Him" John 12:32. No self-conflicted exceptions.

I have seen some post in favor of an Arminian POv on this board calling themselves "non-calvinist" because they are fully aware that OSAS and the Arminian "Free will" POV don't mix unless you throw out both the Bible teaching on "perseverance of the saints" and throw out the idea that choices have consequences as noted in the Bible.

 

[Reformed]

I do not feel that Revmitchell was trying to say that all the problem is by Calvinists. I believe he was only referring to specific people and problems he has been involved with. On the other hand, using terms like "cals" is not very helpful. In fact, given the wide range of beliefs in each camp, it is probably best to drop both names entirely.

Your intentions for this thread were good but very difficult to achieve. Passions run deep on this topic. The same arguments have been made over and over again; ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The two sides cannot even come to terms on describing their respective positions. With some exceptions Calvinists are fine being described as such since they know the label describes only their soteriology, not the rest of Calvin's beliefs. Arminians typically bristle at being called Arminians on the basis they eschew labels. When Calvinists call Synergists "Arminians" we are referring to their view on soteriology only.

Why are terms or labels important? Because it helps frame the discussion. Labels mean things. If you reach in the spice cabinet for basil you don't want to grab cayenne pepper by mistake. The label on the container describes what's in it. That's all labels do in theological debate. Those who get their knickers in a twist about it should do a better job of debating.

Personally I like the terms Monergism and Synergism better than Calvinism and Arminianism. The former terms accurately describe the relationship between God and man in salvation. But fear not, the two camps won't even agree to use those terms exclusively.

Jeremy, if you start feeling like a salmon swimming up stream then you will know what it's like to debate Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

 

[BobRyan]

Arminians typically bristle at being called Arminians on the basis they eschew labels. .

I like the term Arminian because it goes to free will - not merely some action on the part of the one being saved -- but out right "choices make a different" actions - which affect the life both before and after being born again.

It is the full Arminian sense of the POV that makes it easy to accept texts like Matt 18 on Christ's teaching about forgiveness revoked.

And it is a point where many Calvinists slam the Arminian who wants to cling to OSAS and yet claim to be Arminian. In that respect - the Calvinists have the logical point hands down.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinists only get out of this - by ignoring the problem:
Calvinists cannot hold to Calvinism and yet deny that God becomes His own gospel "saboteur" via "arbitrary selection" so that none of his laments about the lost and his efforts for the lost - can be made to make any sense.

Arminians who hold to OSAS - only get out of this by ignoring the problem.
Arminians cannot deny that the OSAS principle negates all the "free will" and "choice matters" arguments so central to their Arminian framework.

In both cases they can simply get out of the cognitive dissonance by claiming "it is all a mystery" but then so can the JWs when you point out a weakness in their own doctrinal framework.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Revmitchell]

Folks do not like being called Arminians because they are not. It is a misnomer in many cases.

 

[BobRyan]

In many cases they are not on this board - just as you say. But the 20 million or so members of my denomination are Arminian when it comes to free will -- much the same way as are Methodists.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

In many cases they are not on this board - just as you say. But the 20 million or so members of my denomination are Arminian when it comes to free will -- much the same way as are Methodists.

in Christ,

Bob

So......let the music begin! I will make my case on OSAS and unconditional election on John 6:36-40. I don't believe there is anyone on this forum who can deal with this passage exegetically correct and so, they will be forced to JUMP and SKIP to other texts outside this context. Of course, then when you follow them to where they jump they just play the same jump and skip game because no context really supports their position. However, John 6:36-40 is so explicit and so clear that it simply cannot be handled in any exegetical correct fashion by our pure Arminians friends.

 

[Bro. James]

A couple of dumb questions: What if Calvin and Arminius are both wrong? What was the plan of salvation before the 16th century?

A third: Are we forgetting these gentlemen were pedobaptists?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[The Biblicist]

A couple of dumb questions: What if Calvin and Arminius are both wrong? What was the plan of salvation before the 16th century?

A third: Are we forgetting these gentlemen were pedobaptists?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

I don't claim either. My issue is confined to the scriptures alone.

 

[Reformed]

Folks do not like being called Arminians because they are not. It is a misnomer in many cases.

The same with Calvinism. How many Calvinistic Baptists do you know who believe in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology? The term sticks because of Calvin's prolific teaching on election. If it didn't then you wouldn't refer to us as "cals". In my opinion if a person believes man cooperates with God in salvation (Synergism) then they hold to an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian view of salvation even though they disagree with both theological camps on most other teachings.

 

[Revmitchell]

The same with Calvinism. How many Calvinistic Baptists do you know who believe in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology? The term sticks because of Calvin's prolific teaching on election. If it didn't then you wouldn't refer to us as "cals". In my opinion if a person believes man cooperates with God in salvation (Synergism) then they hold to an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian view of salvation even though they disagree with both theological camps on most other teachings.

I don't really care to use it. I will be glad to mono and syner.

 

[SolaSaint]

I'm all for this discussion but I'm concerned it will become a feud as usual, and we are already approaching 40 posts and I don't think a discussion is around the corner?

 

[Reformed]

I don't really care to use it. I will be glad to mono and syner.

Well, those are my preferred terms (Monergism and Synergism). They do not have a person's name attached to them and they get right to the theological heart of the matter.

 

[kyredneck]

......In fact, given the wide range of beliefs in each camp, it is probably best to drop both names entirely......

....already been tried with the very simplest of terms:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

DoGs had no problem with it.

Too many mugwumps in the synergist/Arminian/free willer/Pelagian/semi-Pelagian/non-Cal camp that wouldn't accept the definition. Doesn't matter how 'delicately' it's presented, the synergist/Arminian/free willer/Pelagian/semi-Pelagian/non-Cal camp won't come to agreement with it.

[edit to add]

....maybe something like this would work:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

Mugwumpism: the doctrine that the human will is both active and passive in the work of regeneration.

 

[convicted1]

Calvinists only get out of this - by ignoring the problem:
Calvinists cannot hold to Calvinism and yet deny that God becomes His own gospel "saboteur" via "arbitrary selection" so that none of his laments about the lost and his efforts for the lost - can be made to make any sense.

Arminians who hold to OSAS - only get out of this by ignoring the problem.
Arminians cannot deny that the OSAS principle negates all the "free will" and "choice matters" arguments so central to their Arminian framework.

In both cases they can simply get out of the cognitive dissonance by claiming "it is all a mystery" but then so can the JWs when you point out a weakness in their own doctrinal framework.

in Christ,

Bob

And the downward spiral begins....

 

[convicted1]

Mugwumpism......

Classic.....


Lullz....

 

[kyredneck]

Mugwumpism......

Classic.....


Lullz....

Old Schoolism: the doctrine that the human will is passive in eternal salvation and active in gospel salvation.

 

[convicted1]

Old Schoolism: the doctrine that the human will is passive in eternal salvation and active in gospel salvation.

Please elaborate.

Is this another verbal saying for "time salvation"?

Please delve deeper...I know very little about it....


[ETA--Have you read that blog I PM'd you yet?]