-
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!
Non-Calvinist theologians?
- Thread starter bjonson
- Start date
- Status
Consistent Arminianism is usually coextensive with Wesleyanism. See http://wesley.nnu.edu/holiness_tradition/wiley/
I am not sure that "most" people in evangelicalism today have a deep enough theology to rightly discern whether they are one or the other. I'm not trying to be mean but evangelicals often seem to be pretty shallow today.
I would probably disagree with your conclusion as well. I think most evangelicals are default arminians having been taught that man's decision is primary in salvation.
I would probably disagree with your conclusion as well. I think most evangelicals are default arminians having been taught that man's decision is primary in salvation.
IveyLeaguer
New Member
I won't hijack the thread, but I must respond.
This one really amuses me. No doubt that most people have not studied out the issue, but the notion that a regenerate Christian who is not a 5 pt. Calvinist must, by definition, be Arminian is ridiculous. [A point, BTW, which I don't care to debate - I've already been round and round with Pastor Larry (who is one of my favorite posters, as are you) on this point, only to end up right back where we started.]
As to the OP, there are some excellent non-Calvinist theologians but most of the ones I know of are not Arminian.
Therein lies the problem with Calvinism. It seeks a SYSTEM for God's handiwork to fit into so it is more understandble to the ways of the fallen human mind. The thing is, 90% or something like that fits quite nicely. The rest is hammered in through forced intellectualization.
As to the OP, there are some excellent non-Calvinist theologians but most of the ones I know of are not Arminian.
Though I am sure that folks on both sides might object to one thing or another... this seems to be a fair representation of the two camps:
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/calvinarminian.htm
Helen, Other than the last point, what would you object to in the arminian position.
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/calvinarminian.htm
Helen, Other than the last point, what would you object to in the arminian position.
Therein lies the problem with Calvinism. It seeks a SYSTEM for God's handiwork to fit into so it is more understandble to the ways of the fallen human mind. The thing is, 90% or something like that fits quite nicely. The rest is hammered in through forced intellectualization.</font>[/QUOTE] I don't "hammer" anything having previously stated that some of Calvin's explanations were unsatisfactory.
As I said, I believe TULIP best accommodates what scripture says... not all points with equal ease but I know of none that cannot be dealt with through comparison with the overall context of scripture.
Brian, that is very likely. However, I wasn't persuaded/disuaded by anything said on the board. I was probably persuaded by the Calvinistic theologians I was reading
William Lane Craig might be considered non-Calvinistic and/or J.P. Moreland. I don't know, I haven't read thm. I know they're "philosophers" and not technically "theologians" but one friend who leans more to the arminian side is greatly influenced by these two.
It's a fair question, Scott. And I am not going to give a quick and dirty response. I have copied off, from that website, the five points of each and will give a response to each of the five points for each side, probably tomorrow. I have started the response, but I don't have time to do it all today.
God bless.
Moody was definitely not Calvinistic, though I've never heard that he believed he could lose your salvation. R. A. Torrey (who I believe someone has already mentioned), on the other hand, was a close associate of Moody's and definitely not a Calvinist and definitely a theologian, though more in the popular mode than the professional mode.
I, too, feel to be simplistic the suggestion on this thread that one must be either Calvinist or Arminian or he hasn't studied the issues. It is entirely possible to come out somewhere in the middle after studying all the verses, reading the theologians and discussing it in the college or seminary dorm--or the Baptist Board.
Charles Finney is one Arminian who wrote a systematic theology. There have been others--Jacob Arminius, for example!
Henry Theissen was a very solid evangelical theologian (not "shallow"--quit with that already, okay, Scott J?) who stood somewhere in the middle. His Lectures in Systematic Theology has been a standard textbook for many years. I would recommend it to anyone as a starting place for studying systematic theology.
Others who are non-Calvinist on the modern scene (though these may have been mentioned) include Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges and Leon Morris.
Henry Theissen was a very solid evangelical theologian (not "shallow"--quit with that already, okay, Scott J?) who stood somewhere in the middle. His Lectures in Systematic Theology has been a standard textbook for many years. I would recommend it to anyone as a starting place for studying systematic theology.
Others who are non-Calvinist on the modern scene (though these may have been mentioned) include Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges and Leon Morris.
IMHO, there is a problem with definitions in the above posts. Apparently, some Calvinists define anyone who is not a Calvinist as an Arminian regardless of what the belief is on this issue. I do not consider myself a Calvinist and I do not believe a Christian can lose their salvation. I believe a Christian can make a decision to stop trusting Christ alone as savior and by this decision forfits his salvation. Works and performance have nothing to do with it. Too many times the term 'losing your salvation' is interpreted as something that happened that your are not aware. I am eternally secure as long as I continue to trust Christ as my Savior.
I think most non-calvinist, evangelistic demoninations believe as I do. Many Calvinists think Christians in these demoninations do not know if they are saved or not, which of course is false. These denominations usually do not consider themselves Arminian, but somewhere in between.
I think most non-calvinist, evangelistic demoninations believe as I do. Many Calvinists think Christians in these demoninations do not know if they are saved or not, which of course is false. These denominations usually do not consider themselves Arminian, but somewhere in between.
Runs in my mind Miley was Armenian as well.
Ron Johnson
New Member
http://www.biblicist.org/bible/main.shtml Here is a good web for those that are neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am a BIBLICIST. Most Calvinists consider you an Arminian if you do not believe in all 5 points. This is unfortunate.I have a real problem with particular Atonement.
Ron Johnson
New Member
The best Arminian theo of this 21st century is Jack Cottrell(Cambelite).20th---Robert Shank.
Nope, but he was Arminian! Sorry, exscentric, I couldn't resist.
I'm with you, Ron.
Sure you could have resisted, but you'd rather let that old nature get the best of you and - and - and ....
Well, I deserved that
I still think he was one of them guys no matter if I cain't spell!
Well, I deserved that
I still think he was one of them guys no matter if I cain't spell!
- Status