What he said ^^^^
-
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!
Sympathy for the Arminian
- Thread starter Protestant
- Start date
- Status
I have to state that in all the churches that I have visited, I have not ONCE heard a sermon by a Calvinist pastor preach against the Arminian view EXCEPT when it comes to baptism and OSAS. In that, they do not point to "arminian" but ANY view that propegates that baptism is part of salvation and teaches that one can loose their salvation. Even Baptist non-cals preach that, too.
HOWEVER, I have heard a number of non-cal preachers harp on the doctrines of grace view and spend precious time attempting to ridicule that which they actually have very little true understanding.
In essence, it isn't the Cal view that needs educated about the non-cal. Most of us came out of that bunch and some of us actually taught that view.
Perhaps in your world you have Calvinistic thinking preachers who proclaim Arminians as heretics, but on this board and in the sphere of which I have roamed, no such claim has been even suggested. Certainly, those who wander into the extreme and begin to embrace Pelegian view(s) have been quickly shown that such is heretical.
I have NEVER heard a calvinist ever proclaim a non-cal a heretic other than those who are sold out to a heretical view.
That cannot be said of the non-cal folks - to their shame.
IN FACT, the evidence of the BB posts will find that most calvinistic folks have an abundance of patience and make overwhelming attempts to correct scriptural error of any that may mistakenly handle Scriptures.
Just as on this board, the typical calvinistic posts will present Scripture and Scriptural principal over and over in true attempts of displaying what God's word is stating. All the time others of opposing views will spend time in shameful disputation using name calling as if that is supportive at all of their view.
For instance, is it not true that the vast majority of your own posts include some statement of ridicule toward calvinists?
How many posts by calvinists actually mention the "non-cal" and make derogatory statements?
Perhaps the percentage would be 90% non-cal posts proclaiming derogatory statements of Calvinism compared to 10% of cals spouting defamatory statements toward non-cals.
I also sympathize with those who are in denial of their debate tactics and try to act all innocent of making any derogatory statements while they assume their veiled, what should be avoided, direct personal attacks are not noticed and hypocritically do just what they claim they aren't involved in while putting on their holier than thou rhetorical personal arguments. "Insult to injury" comes to mind.
Especially coming from those who go about desperately trying avoid being pinned to terms that accurately define premises in their theological system which work to draw out logical conclusions while at the same time they apparently desperately reason that if they bring up their whole system every time an isolated specific issue is raised that somehow their circular arguments are beneficial to a debate.
Sad that some presume to avoid reaching conclusions by avoiding sticking to these terms/premises, which hold them to claims leading to conclusions and think that pulling these smokescreen tactics and constantly raising rhetorical arguments about the opposition not using scripture rather than good reasoning skills concerning the meaning of scriptures somehow help them from ever losing an argument.
Relying on such tactics and rhetoric is indeed an immature way to approach debate since it is merely an attempt to avoid involving ethical principles to draw out the truths in an argument. But some old DoGs will never learn a new trick because sadly they like the old comfort zone of endless meaningless rhetorical smokescreen types of arguments where they feel they can keep their prized manmade system safe and supposedly growing…
In stereotypical fashion, the same will continuously demonstrate that they’d rather argue and whine endlessly and will fight to the death about their personal issues with those who wish to argue logically rather than have to direct their focus on the issue of sticking to, or getting pinned to their roots which will most certainly lead to them having to stand by while these roots of TULIP get ripped from the ground one by one in an orderly fashion and which would cause them to watch their whole system begin to wilt.
Especially coming from those who go about desperately trying avoid being pinned to terms that accurately define premises in their theological system which work to draw out logical conclusions while at the same time they apparently desperately reason that if they bring up their whole system every time an isolated specific issue is raised that somehow their circular arguments are beneficial to a debate.
Sad that some presume to avoid reaching conclusions by avoiding sticking to these terms/premises, which hold them to claims leading to conclusions and think that pulling these smokescreen tactics and constantly raising rhetorical arguments about the opposition not using scripture rather than good reasoning skills concerning the meaning of scriptures somehow help them from ever losing an argument.
Relying on such tactics and rhetoric is indeed an immature way to approach debate since it is merely an attempt to avoid involving ethical principles to draw out the truths in an argument. But some old DoGs will never learn a new trick because sadly they like the old comfort zone of endless meaningless rhetorical smokescreen types of arguments where they feel they can keep their prized manmade system safe and supposedly growing…
In stereotypical fashion, the same will continuously demonstrate that they’d rather argue and whine endlessly and will fight to the death about their personal issues with those who wish to argue logically rather than have to direct their focus on the issue of sticking to, or getting pinned to their roots which will most certainly lead to them having to stand by while these roots of TULIP get ripped from the ground one by one in an orderly fashion and which would cause them to watch their whole system begin to wilt.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Once again, Skan...elegant, articulate and accurate analysis and insight. Thank you for your reasoned and insightful commentary.
Tom Butler
New Member
A couple of observations:
First, Protestant is not a Baptist. Brother, you're welcome here, but read the rules. You can't post in the Baptist-only forums. You're welcome to post everywhere else.
Second, I know quite a few Southern Baptist Calvinists, but I do not know a single Southern Baptist Arminian. Arminians hold a grace plus works salvation and believe one may lose his salvation. No Southern Baptist I know believes that.
First, Protestant is not a Baptist. Brother, you're welcome here, but read the rules. You can't post in the Baptist-only forums. You're welcome to post everywhere else.
Second, I know quite a few Southern Baptist Calvinists, but I do not know a single Southern Baptist Arminian. Arminians hold a grace plus works salvation and believe one may lose his salvation. No Southern Baptist I know believes that.
Where does it say in Calvinistic doctrine that God calls everyone to salvation...I must of missed that.
convicted1
Guest
Hence the chasm broadens betwixt the two camps....:tear:
Protestant,
There is a basic truth to the premise that Arminians impose (wittingly or unwittingly) their view of fairness on God. It is perfectly logical. After all, what more can we expect with our relationships besides fairness? Fairness implies a sort of equality. We all have a level playing field. No one has it better or worse than somebody else. There is no "playing favorites". Would not life be great if fairness ruled; if everyone was fair to each other all the time? The truth is that fairness is a myth. Our idea of fairness is tainted by our presuppositions and experiences. What I consider to be fair you may consider to be favoritism and vice versa. To the Arminian the epitome of fairness is God. Surely with God all people are equal. The Arminian will point to John 3:16 and happily proclaim, "For God so loved the world!" How more fair can God be? He loves the whole world! But contrast that against Romans 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
In another thread the accusation was made that consistent Calvinism leads to hyper-Calvinism. Well, consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism and/or Universalism. After all God is fair. Another poster wrote, "Shall not the God of all the earth do right?" Do right according to whose definition of right? Are we really going to impose upon God our idea of who He should be and how He should act? Does God answer to His creation?
The fact is that God is not fair. If God was fair He would either condemn all or save all. Instead of being fair, God is merciful and just. He displays great mercy and forgiveness towards those who call on Him by faith; while dispensing wrath on those who reject Him. The Arminian would agree with this and counter by saying that is proof God is fair because each person has an equal chance to either accept or reject Him. But is that true? Back in Romans 9:11 Paul wrote about Jacob and Esau, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;". God's choice was made prior, and independent, of human choice.
The Arminian's view of God's fairness is flawed. Even when God said in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord" He was not painting the picture of sitting down at the negotiation table with sinful man and trying to come to a fair conclusion. God was telling Israel to stop their excuses and see themselves as He saw them and to accept His remedy. God is doing the same today. He is not negotiating with sinners. He commands sinners to repent (Acts 17:30). Jesus displayed a great amount of intolerance when He said, " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). God's way or no way. How is that fair?
God is not fair. But praise be that He is merciful.
There is a basic truth to the premise that Arminians impose (wittingly or unwittingly) their view of fairness on God. It is perfectly logical. After all, what more can we expect with our relationships besides fairness? Fairness implies a sort of equality. We all have a level playing field. No one has it better or worse than somebody else. There is no "playing favorites". Would not life be great if fairness ruled; if everyone was fair to each other all the time? The truth is that fairness is a myth. Our idea of fairness is tainted by our presuppositions and experiences. What I consider to be fair you may consider to be favoritism and vice versa. To the Arminian the epitome of fairness is God. Surely with God all people are equal. The Arminian will point to John 3:16 and happily proclaim, "For God so loved the world!" How more fair can God be? He loves the whole world! But contrast that against Romans 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
In another thread the accusation was made that consistent Calvinism leads to hyper-Calvinism. Well, consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism and/or Universalism. After all God is fair. Another poster wrote, "Shall not the God of all the earth do right?" Do right according to whose definition of right? Are we really going to impose upon God our idea of who He should be and how He should act? Does God answer to His creation?
The fact is that God is not fair. If God was fair He would either condemn all or save all. Instead of being fair, God is merciful and just. He displays great mercy and forgiveness towards those who call on Him by faith; while dispensing wrath on those who reject Him. The Arminian would agree with this and counter by saying that is proof God is fair because each person has an equal chance to either accept or reject Him. But is that true? Back in Romans 9:11 Paul wrote about Jacob and Esau, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;". God's choice was made prior, and independent, of human choice.
The Arminian's view of God's fairness is flawed. Even when God said in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord" He was not painting the picture of sitting down at the negotiation table with sinful man and trying to come to a fair conclusion. God was telling Israel to stop their excuses and see themselves as He saw them and to accept His remedy. God is doing the same today. He is not negotiating with sinners. He commands sinners to repent (Acts 17:30). Jesus displayed a great amount of intolerance when He said, " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). God's way or no way. How is that fair?
God is not fair. But praise be that He is merciful.
Last edited by a moderator:
So don't follow either...obviously both are flawed. But your wnderstanding of attonement must be reviewed in far more detail than I believe you have done. There is where you need to put emphesis my brother.
I cannot speak to the motivation of the Arminian when he objects to Calvinism unless he reveals his motivation in his objection.
Really G2C..... then how would you rate this commentary?
Instead of studying the WORD, Calvinists accept the interpretations of Calvin on election, who got his idea from Augustine (whom he quoted over 400 times in his Institutes), who got his idea of election from Manicheans, who get their idea from BUDDHISTS.
Calvinists like John Piper even take these occultic doctrines even further and CHRISTIANIZE hedonism. See also Piper's support of the Catholic influenced Lausanne Movement.
:smilewinkgrin:
That would fall into the same category, arrogant and caustic instead of know-it-allish
How would I rate it? It sounds like the ranting of an idiot.
Robert Snow
New Member
as it should!
The church is under obligation to stand against the false doctrine of Calvinism at least Calvinism as it is presented in todays Christian world.
So then, what should we stand for? The Unbiblical and illogical heresy of Finneyism? Should we just all check our Bibles and our brains at the door and be a bunch of drooling, brain dead synergist zombies?
Hum.....you will hurt his feelings no doubt. Then you will be called the typical nasty & arrogant Calvinist.
Who said it?
Your good buddy.... Who else would have that character trait! Sad right!
I have never been a fan of Calvin or Calvinism. I have never studied Calvin or Calvinism. I have studied the Scriptures and come to what I believe by simply studying the Scriptures and the scriptures alone. I defend my beliefs by contextual based arguments.
When debating those who oppose Biblical election they ALWAYS violate the immediate context of scripture and eventually move to a philosophical line of arguments instead of scriptural arguments and when that does not work then the personal insinuations and accusations are their last refuge of defence.
- Status