Non-Calvinist theologians?

LOL - that isn't logical nor Scriptural. Contrary to Calvinism, total depravity does not mean that the sinner is unable to come to Christ, just that he is unwilling. He weeps over Jerusalem and says "...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not and ye would not!" Yet time and time again the Spirit of God wooes the sinner to Christ and Christ Himself says "Come unto Me, all ye..." Hence, the onus is on the sinner to come, believe and receive the free gift of salvation.

No man can come to me, except the Father . . . draw him. Their obstinacy and unbelief (Joh 6:41-42) called out this. Two things are needful to come to Christ,the human will to come and the divine drawing (see Joh 5:40; Mt 23:37; Re 22:17). God "draws" by the gospel. "It is the power of God unto salvation" (Ro 1:16). If our will consents, so that we yield to the drawing, we will come to Christ.If our will consents, so that we yield to the drawing, we will come to Christ.


Ray

 

This is what Wesley believed about total depravity:

Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as "Prevenient Grace." Prevenient Grace doesn't save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us WANT to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God.

Since his "Prevenient Grace" is available to everyone this is not the equivalent of the Calvinist idea of total depravity at all. In fact, it's just the opposite.

 

Leon Morris is Calvinistic . At least that's what I gathered from a couple of his books which I have throughly enjoyed .

Norm Geisler is an Arminian , though he calls himself a ' moderate Calvinist " .

Finney was more extreme than even being an Arminian . He occupied Pelagian territory for the most part .

 

Rippon you need to read and understand what J Arminius taught. Norm Geisler is no more an arminian than I am or any other person on this board who disagrees with calvin's teachings. If you can't get this one simple think straight how can you even be expected to taken seriously!

 

Biblicists = Arminians . Geisler is an Arminian . I'm pretty familiar with Arminianism . I have a whole accounting of the Synod of Dort by Homer Hoeksema . It gives plenty of info from about their position . And it lets them speak at-length as well . You're only fooling yourself if you think " biblicists " are not Arminian .

 

Okay Rippon, I am not sure that the biggest disagreement with Arminus it that he did not believe in eternal security. Rather that a person could lose their salvation. This one doctrinal issue alone is so important that it should seperate Him from Arminians. But hey if you think biblicist = arminians then put me there too. Cause I certainly am a biblicist!!

 

In 1610 or 1611 they said on their 5th point that they were not sure about being eternally secure . They were up in the air about that proposition . But by the time of the Synod of Dort , a 6 month period of time 1618-1619 they had rejected what you would call eternal security . Of course Jacob himself had died in 1609 .

As an aside , I remember a Fundamentalist preacher in a Christian bookstore here telling me that Calvin killed Arminius . Now that was a new one . Calvin must have given the 4 year old a lethal shot before he passed away in 1564 . It had to have been a much delayed potency injection.

 

God issued the "Commandments" to Israel and told them to "Obey them",

so the question becomes, did Israel have an option to obey/disobey those commandments??

I "think" we all agree that it was possible to "disobey", and break the commandments,

Thoughout the OT God gave Israel a "CHOICE" to serve him or not and explained the consequences of each, Blessing/Curse.

But under the NT, calvin said we don't have a "CHOICE" as God gave to Israel, and since we don't have a choice, neither "Blessing/Curse" are the consequences of a choice we make.

Abraham "CHOSE" to believe (Faith) God and it was counted to him as "Righteousness", if we believe (Faith) in Jesus, it too is counted to us as "righteousness",

Has the plan of salvation through "FAITH" in God changed, if you believe calvin, it has.

 

Here is another quote from the same sermon by Spurgeon:

"In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must he regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false. It takes away a gospel for sinners and offers us a gospel for saints. It is anything hut a ministry of free grace."

Notice the subtlety of what he is dealing with. He is preaching against Hyper-Calvinists who say that you must see a work of grace before you can preach the gospel. He is NOT giving a theological treatise on when the work of grace takes place compared to faith.

Here is the whole quote (not taken out of context):

"I lay down this morning with great boldness—because I know and am well persuaded that what I speak is the mind of the Spirit—this doctrine that the sole and only warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus is found in the gospel itself and in the command which accompanies that
gospel, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." I shall deal with that matter first of all, negatively, and then, positively.

1. First, NEGATIVELY; and here my first observation is that any other way of preaching the gospel-warrant is absurd. If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical
repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul."

He is not saying that faith produces regeneration. He is saying that if someone is obviously regenerate (as evidenced by repentance) it would be silly to preach to them to believe in order to be saved, because they already do. Repentance does not exist where a soul in unrenewed (unregenerate). Far from being a Spurgeon proof-text against regeneration preceding faith, it appears that he was actually saying just that. There is no need to preach faith to someone who is regenerate. The gospel is for unbelievers. That was his point.

 

Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

"Repentance" come "BEFORE" salvation, only "IF YOU BELIEVE" will salvation follow.

Many are called, few chosen, the reason few are chosen is because they closed their eyes/ears, refused to repent and rejected the call, that the "ONLY REASON" they are rejected, Jesus said "I would", "You wouldn't".

Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (save)

The "Seed" is sowed, but the "condition" of the heart determines if it grows or not. read the parable.

Yes, but to "ALL" unbelievers or just calvin's "Elect".

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Why did Jesus say he would be a "witness" (Confess) for us before God if we bear witness of him on earth, and "WHY" is the gospel to be preached "For a witness"??

What's with all the "witnesses", are we going to "Trial" on Judgment day???

You bet we are, and the "JUSTIFICATION" to condemn the unbelievers is the "WITNESS" of the Spirit (gospel) that it "called" them to be saved and they rejected it.

Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Man only reaps what man sows, God doesn't sow the "SEED" of destruction for any man, but just the opposite, the "SEED" of "life" for every man, "IF" they believe. (died for sin of whole world)

You can be a "slave" of God/Satan, but man reaps, according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Unbelief is the only thing preventing the "whole world" from being saved, and how much "GLORY" would God get out of redeeming every single soul satan claimed, IF God was predestine, that would be his greatest glory, don't ya think??

 

This is simply a false statement.

I am a calvinist because after reading scripture it appears to be the best system for accounting for the whole of scripture... not because it answers Arminianism per se. Though I will acknowledge that it was gaping holes in the de facto Arminianism I had been taught as a child that left me both dissatisfied and plagued by doubt.

As far as people who are neither, there are people who have not studied the issue enough to align themselves with one or the other but most non-calvinist Baptists and Protestants are in fact Arminian in their beliefs. </font>[/QUOTE]You are wrong on this Scott, and the quote is quite correct. I deny all five points of Calvinism, and yet I believe in the eternal security of the saints as do most Baptists.

How many Arminians do you suppose believe in OSAS? The answer is none or they wouldn't be considered to be Arminian.

And no, the doctrine of the eternal security of the saints is not the same as the last point of Calvinism, the Perseverance of the Saints. They are close, but not the same.

And Calvinism has no answers for Isa. 66:2; Acts 7:51; 2 Pet. 3:9; Mt. 23:37; 1 John 2:2; Josh. 24:15; & Prov. 1:29 that I can think off right of my head.

So then Calvinism is not not "the best system for accounting for the whole of scripture.." It has been embraced largely because it appeals to a base instincts of man to feel special. And it is easy to use as an excuse to not have to witness since their is no way in the world of Calvinism to either enlarge or shrink the number of eventual believers that go to heaven.

Calvinists don't like to admit that, but that end conclusion is sadly unavoidable.

Why did God say this?

"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would (not 'could') fear me,
and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" Deut. 5:29

 

Luther was, in a sense, a stronger Clavinist than John Calvin himself. Remember he was an Augustinian even before his ejection from the Catholic church. His greatest work is called "The Bondage of the Will", and could be the greatest single work in support of Calvinism, although it wasn't called Calvinism until years after the death of both Calvin and Luther.

Those that lead the German protestant churches after Luther drifted away from their founder's teachings significantly. Lutheran theology today is a confusing mixture of both sides. On one hand, they are monergistic in salvation, universalists in atonment, and believe that believers can lose their salvation. When confronted with their obvious contradictions, much like regular arminians and "hybrid" ("biblicist") baptists, they simply chalk it up to "mystery", you know, that convenient place we put every thing that doesn't line up with our theology (and I'll admit that we calvinists do it too, but much less I think).

 

GOOD GRIEF, Me4Him. How many times do I have to say the same thing over and over again. Salvation is a broad topic. Regeneration is only part of it. Theologians argue over whether regeneration preceeds faith and repentance or comes after faith and repentance.

Nobody (except, I guess, for you) seems to think that the words "regeneration" and "salvation" are exact equivalents. It would be like equating the word "eating" with the word "chewing." In order to eat you have to chew, but chewing is only part of eating. There is also mouth-opening, mouth-closing, tasting, swallowing, and digesting. Salvation involves election, predestination, crucifixion, calling, regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, Spirit-baptism, indwelling, sealing, sanctification, and glorification.

 

But if one believes four out of the five points of Calvinism, they are labelled 4-point Calvinists. So, if you just deny the last point of Arminianism, then you must be a 4-point Arminian.

 

Actually, not all Arminians believe that one can lose his salvation.

The rest of your post just shows that you do not know that which you argue against.

 

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the LORD. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word.

Calvinists have no problem with this verse. Does it say how one comes to have a poor and contrite spirit and to tremble at His word?

Acts 7:51 You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. This is exactly what Calvinists say. Mankind, left to themselves, always resist. That is because they are uncircumcised in heart. It is not until God circumcises the heart that anyone stops resisting.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Classical Calvinist answer: God must have two wills - a will of desire and a will of decree. Actually, you have to say this as well, because not everyone gets saved. So this "willing" cannot be God's will of decree, which the Bible is clear exists.

Other possible answer: Who is God longsuffering towards? Us. Who is us? Either those who already believe or those who will believe. God does not return in judgement yet because the full number of the elect have not been brought in yet. Personally, I think the first answer is better, but this one can't be ignored based on context.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Again, God desires people to respond to Him correctly, but because of their sinful nature, they do not. This is Calvinism 101. Unless God regenerates, they do not believe.

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

It does not say "He is the possible propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also possibly for the whole world." It says, "He IS the propitiation." You either must figure that propitiation does not mean satisfaction of God's wrath (which it does mean) or that "world" doesn't mean "every person who has ever lived," which it doesn't always mean. I believe, in this context, it means both Jews and Gentiles, every nation under heave, every tribe, every tongue, the whole world.

The question you need to answer about this verse is that if God's wrath has been satisfied by the death of Christ on behalf of every person who has ever lived, why does He still punish them in the lake of fire for all eternity?

Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

The choice is out there. And every day, men choose incorrectly. They are dead in their tresspasses and sins. Calvinism does not deny this, but rather biblically explains why men choose to reject God and serve the gods of their fathers.

Proverbs 1:29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD

This seems like a good proof-text for the 1st point of Calvinism - Total Depravity.

Honestly, we've answered these verses over and over again so many times it is getting ridiculous. We love these verses. I used to throw these same Scriptures (John 3:16 included) at Calvinists all day until I became one.

 

But if one believes four out of the five points of Calvinism, they are labelled 4-point Calvinists. So, if you just deny the last point of Arminianism, then you must be a 4-point Arminian. </font>[/QUOTE]If one denies that last point of Arminianism, then they are not followers of the teachings of Jacobus Arminius. Therefore I am not an Arminian.

And I don't but into this "I'm a one point...or three point, etc. thing either.

 

Jesus said he would, they wouldn't, If God didn't "enable" them to believe, why did God blame them when actually it was "God's fault" for not "enabling them",

God's will was toward salvation, their will was against it.

I would, "YOU" wouldn't, can't be "twisted".

Have you ever heard of "IN CHRIST", the church (believers) is the "BODY OF CHRIST", guess what,

The "BODY OF CHRIST" has already died to "Pay the wages of sin",

those who are not in the "BODY OF CHRIST" still owe the "wages of sin".

God doesn't "SEE" believers, only "JESUS".

When I see the blood, I'll pass over you

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There's a little more to scripture than what "theologians" can "know".

 

I prefer more reputable sources, such as the National Enquirer.