The thread within the scriptures would be Ezekiel 36:25-27; John 3:5; Titus 3:5-6; Hebrews 9:13, 19; Hebrews 10:22; Romans 2:13-15
-
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!
The Arminian Trinity
- Thread starter thatbrian
- Start date
- Status
The thread within the scriptures would be Ezekiel 36:25-27; John 3:5; Titus 3:5-6; Hebrews 9:13, 19; Hebrews 10:22; Romans 2:13-15
Sorry, but citing some verses is not an explanation.
Ezekiel 36 is about Israel's redemption and restoration as a nation comprised of God's chosen people. Calvinists cherry pick a couple of verses out of it and claim the meaning is that one must be regenerated (be given a new heart) before one can have faith.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
OK (I guess).Take it in the spirit it is offered? I am by nature didactic. I am a Pastor/Teacher. My ministry for the past 45 years has been the exposition of God's word. I don't see any valid reason to stop doing what God prepared me to do.
For what reason so they leave? Has sound doctrine driven them away? Or have their egos been so bruised they crawl off to sulk. I have been on this forum for over 17 years and, with the exception of taking time off to battle life threatening health issues, I have never been tempted to crawl off and sulk?
I think the best solution is to remain open minded. Let the scriptures, not our preconceptions, be our guide.
BTW It was not so much you I was thinking of when being critical.
HankD
Great point.
I know. But I think many of us, on both sides of the issue, find the learning experience here valuable.
Yes and I said Generally I would agree but not in some particulars, and no I don't want to resurrect any of them.opening old wounds.I know. But I think many of us, on both sides of the issue, find the learning experience here valuable.
Except to say at least one individual continues to be inflammatory and some here respond to him/her.
HankD
The second half of the verse:
"How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"
This is what Arminians, and others who espouse "free will" use as the explanation for why some men respond to the gospel while others don't. They reason that God wants to save all men, but some just don't want to be saved. That's what they think the above text is referring to, so they think it bolsters their case.
I know. But I think many of us, on both sides of the issue, find the learning experience here valuable.
I would find it more valuable if people who argued against my position actually understood my position. Iron sharpens iron. Strawmen don't sharpen iron. There needs to be something of substance in order to sharpen the other surface, which is why those who refuse to take a stance, Hank, for example, don't really bring anything to the table in this regard. If he owned a position he might have the position refined, and be a refining source for others, as well.
"I will attempt to convince those of you"
Self-refuting. Shouldn't you be asking God to convince them?
After all the belief is there is nothing in their power nor yours to change their circumstance.
Is common sense the last thing to be regenerated?
IMO, Hank is a good example of humility. I personally believe he DOES have a preference but would rather experience fellowship among brethren here on the BB than the heat of debate. I respect Hank and don't hold his [supposed] 'mugwumpness' against him. That's just Hank.
[add]
And Hank DOES know his Bible.
Thanks K and you know your bible as well brother.IMO, Hank is a good example of humility. I personally believe he DOES have a preference but would rather experience fellowship among brethren here on the BB than the heat of debate. I respect Hank and don't hold his [supposed] 'mugwumpness' against him. That's just Hank.
[add]
And Hank DOES know his Bible.
ibid with the respect
HankD
IMO, Hank is a good example of humility. I personally believe he DOES have a preference but would rather experience fellowship among brethren here on the BB than the heat of debate. I respect Hank and don't hold his [supposed] 'mugwumpness' against him. That's just Hank.
[add]
And Hank DOES know his Bible.
Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate that.
It does not change the comment I made that would fault him for not contributing to the iron sharpening process, but he obviously has his reasons for not doing so.
My apologies; very little free time for the last couple of days. I'm reading over what's been posted.
My initial, off-the-cuff response to Brian is this: Matthew 23 may be used by some as a defense for arminianism; but it seems more a defense that would be used by pelagians, or semi-pelagians. Especially the Molinists that someone referenced. As I may have mentioned previously, most of the articles referencing this subject are by calvinists, claiming an arminian stance on this passage; thus, I need to dig deeper to find some actual non-calvinists who are commenting about this passage.
The context of the passage is for the listeners, both unsaved and saved alike, to stop listening to the religious leaders corrupt the scripture as had been given to them up to that point. Thus, it's not really a defense of arminianism or calvinism.
---
As for your repeated "I wish they actually understood my position" -- well, suffice to say, most who espouse a non-cal position attribute "hyper-calvinism" to all calvinists -- just as some calvinists attribute pelagianism to all non-cals. Both are logical fallacies.
More to come when I'm able to make some time.
My initial, off-the-cuff response to Brian is this: Matthew 23 may be used by some as a defense for arminianism; but it seems more a defense that would be used by pelagians, or semi-pelagians. Especially the Molinists that someone referenced. As I may have mentioned previously, most of the articles referencing this subject are by calvinists, claiming an arminian stance on this passage; thus, I need to dig deeper to find some actual non-calvinists who are commenting about this passage.
The context of the passage is for the listeners, both unsaved and saved alike, to stop listening to the religious leaders corrupt the scripture as had been given to them up to that point. Thus, it's not really a defense of arminianism or calvinism.
---
As for your repeated "I wish they actually understood my position" -- well, suffice to say, most who espouse a non-cal position attribute "hyper-calvinism" to all calvinists -- just as some calvinists attribute pelagianism to all non-cals. Both are logical fallacies.
More to come when I'm able to make some time.
Hank! That's why there is the ignore button--block out the ones that are inflammatory and let the others do the same if they have the desire to do so!
Then the rest can debate politely.
Not going to happen. I don't use the ignore button so that folks can make it to my prayer list (even if they don't ask).
HankD
Point # 2, our arminian friends have to show why desire of God means the same thing as the very will of God
Point#3 The context is clear that peter is speaking towards those who are and will get saved, that the Lord is waiting to make sure all who are to get saved will be saved , as in His elect!
If we are being completely accurate with our use of terms, I agree fully.
On these forums, I use the term Arminian loosely and I should not have in this instance. Most non-Cals are semi-Pelagian, I find, but you do sound like a true Arminian, and you understand the differences between these positions, again, most non-Cals do not.
Now that I know these things, I will tighten up my language. Apologies for any confusion.
I am guilty of clumping Arminians in with semi-Pelagians, but the reason I have is to keep things simple for those who don't understand those terms well enough to identify the differences between them. I am not in any way trying to be uncharitable, and I have not done this because I am ignorant of the different views. I've used the term, "Arminian" to cover all non-Cal positions, and perhaps that was a mistake on my part.
Problem is that some here get upset at being "labeled", even with theological terms that fit what their theology is!
They do.
We certainly mean no harm in giving them a label. If we understand that they hold to an Arminian position, for example, we call them Arminians, but they can take that the wrong way, and many times, I would guess that reaction is one of pride. They think themselves independent and self-sufficient thinkers, with no need to study church history or these historic debates over doctrine.
- Status