The Case for Arminianism

[Winman]

For the record, I am not "calling" you anything. I am contrasting your posted theology with that of others -- either Calvinism or Arminianism -- or in those places where you are neither, pointing that out.

You are proving my point, I am not an Arm, I don't follow any man-made creed, I just try to follow what the Bible says. But to you I must be a Cal or an Arm. This is a conditioned mindset.

I have also asked you to identify your position so that I get it right. I am actually trying to treat you with respect, but you have a hard time seeing that, largely because (both as I imagine, and as I have observed) ANY question about what you believe is taken as a direct threat.

I am not threatening you. I am ASKING you. With that, you can either defend what you believe or you cannot. If you cannot, then perhaps your theology is not as well defined as you imagine. I am not threatened in the least by Arminian theology, nor do I need to make anyone a "boogieman." You appear to be acting out of fear of something that you may not even understand very well.

I am not threatened by you, and I am not trying to attack or threaten you as well. Some have called this a horrendous attack, but I am simply pointing out a behavior that is very common among Cals. I understand how it is perceived as an attack, but is impossible to discuss this subject without ruffling feathers.

So, here is one Calvinist (and I don't prefer that title) asking you to just state your theology clearly so that I get it right.

No, you insisted repeatedly that I compare myself to those Arminian Articles, because that is all you can see, Cal, or Arm.

 

[quantumfaith]

This thread is ABOUT Calvinism and ARMINIANISM and the debate betwixt them.

What are we supposed to be talking about on this thread???????????

About four of you guys are obsessed with the fact that you are very old.

I think it is all you can muster that you have on the sharp young guys coming along- so you keep repeating it over and over again.


And it is a shame that these many years have not enabled you to go toe to toe with the whipper snappers on here.

What good is age if it does not make you smarter? It just makes you old and washed up, doesn't it?

And I don't CARE what you meant by the verse.

You said this thread reminds you of a verse that speaks of HEATHEN.

Now if you can't see how that is offensive then your many, many, many years have certainly not made you any wiser.

Age only impresses me and ALL thinking people if it causes one to behave and converse with wisdom.

I respect the age of Dr. Bob for example. And I respect the age of Ian Paisely, and John MacArthur and old people I know that you do not know.

Now, Mr. Snow, if you are not wiser than me, which is evident in our exchanges, and you can't beat me in arm wrestling or anything else- what do you have?

Oh, I know! You can keep demeaning me from a safe distance! That's it!

Congratulations on that!



But there are plenty of old Calvinists on this site as well- so it nullifies your "old" bit.

Five, if I am not already included in that number. (Levity Luke, levity)

 

[Winman]

Five, if I am not already included in that number. (Levity Luke, levity)

Generally, age and experience are an advantage over youth and inexperience, but not always. Paul told Timothy not to let anyone despise his youth, but Timothy was a very rare and exceptional young man.

Comparing the spiritual with sports is a poor analogy, youth always has an advantage here. But if you needed brain surgery who would you want, the young doctor who has only performed two surgeries, or the older surgeon who has performed hundreds?

 

[quantumfaith]

Generally, age and experience are an advantage over youth and inexperience, but not always. Paul told Timothy not to let anyone despise his youth, but Timothy was a very rare and exceptional young man.

Comparing the spiritual with sports is a poor analogy, youth always has an advantage here. But if you needed brain surgery who would you want, the young doctor who has only performed two surgeries, or the older surgeon who has performed hundreds?

I agree with you Winman. I "KNOW" at lot less now at nearly 50, then I did when I was in my 20's and 30's. I know that I run the risk of this statement being "misconstrued" by some, but I think and trust that You understand the sentiment.

 

[The Archangel]

First, I am not "kicked off" whatever that means. But trying to place me in the Arminian camp is exactly what I am talking about. This is all a Cal can see, either you are one of them, or you are an Arm. And the Arms are the bogieman to Cals.

I am not attacking you, I am pointing out a practice that you may not have been aware of.

Do Cals frequently call those who disagree with them an Arm or not? I am not making any sort of false accusation, you know as well as I do that non-Cals are often called Arms here. And that is a stereotype.

And what is the purpose of stereotyping? Why did Hitler stereotype the Jews? Was that for the Jews or for the German people? Was it to create fear of the Jews? Or was the greater purpose to unite the German people and control them?

But see, lots of folks are not aware they are being controlled and manipulated, they are simply swept away in the flow.

Again, this is a demonstration in caricature. Your suggestion that Calvinists are "being controlled" like the Germans were controlled by Hitler is laughable. You have no concept of reality in this matter.

You know Winman, the problem is not that you are or aren't a Calvinist or an Arminian. The problem is that you don't like people who disagree with you.

Though you do not claim to be an Arminian, your theology is much closer to the Arminian understanding of theology--with the emphasis being on man being the initiator and God being the responder--even going far off by saying that grace is "merited favor." Be that as it may, that, again, is not the issue.

The issue is that you are an anti-Calvinist, regardless of whatever theological tenets you hold or do not hold.

Almost every Calvinist I know will gladly support an Arminian (or non-Calvinist, if you prefer). They may disagree with their theology, but they support the person as a brother or sister in Christ. Unfortunately, you do no such thing. You are so disgusted with the Calvinist position that you cannot separate a Calvinist brother from his theology and, therefore, no one who is a Calvinist gets even a modicum of support from you in any way, shape, or form. Your disdain for theology that is different from yours has blinded you.

Many Arminians are capable and glad to support their Calvinist brothers and sisters. Many are not. Some Calvinists are not willing to support their Arminian brothers and sisters...and that is unfortunately bad too. Both the anti-Calvinists and the anti-Arminians are in great error and are working to divide the Body of Christ and will be judged for doing so.

You would be wise to realize that there is a way to support your brothers and sisters in Christ who are Calvinists, even if you don't agree with their theology. But I fear my words of encouragement are wasted. We have suggested this to you many times and you have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to our unity in the Gospel. Time and time again you have proven unable or unwilling to regard Calvinists as brothers and sisters in Christ. This persistent course of action you take shows a deep and disturbing problem in yourself.

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

Again, this is a demonstration in caricature. Your suggestion that Calvinists are "being controlled" like the Germans were controlled by Hitler is laughable. You have no concept of reality in this matter.

You know Winman, the problem is not that you are or aren't a Calvinist or an Arminian. The problem is that you don't like people who disagree with you.

Though you do not claim to be an Arminian, your theology is much closer to the Arminian understanding of theology--with the emphasis being on man being the initiator and God being the responder--even going far off by saying that grace is "merited favor." Be that as it may, that, again, is not the issue.

The issue is that you are an anti-Calvinist, regardless of whatever theological tenets you hold or do not hold.

Almost every Calvinist I know will gladly support an Arminian (or non-Calvinist, if you prefer). They may disagree with their theology, but they support the person as a brother or sister in Christ. Unfortunately, you do no such thing. You are so disgusted with the Calvinist position that you cannot separate a Calvinist brother from his theology and, therefore, no one who is a Calvinist gets even a modicum of support from you in any way, shape, or form. Your disdain for theology that is different from yours has blinded you.

Many Arminians are capable and glad to support their Calvinist brothers and sisters. Many are not. Some Calvinists are not willing to support their Arminian brothers and sisters...and that is unfortunately bad too. Both the anti-Calvinists and the anti-Arminians are in great error and are working to divide the Body of Christ and will be judged for doing so.

You would be wise to realize that there is a way to support your brothers and sisters in Christ who are Calvinists, even if you don't agree with their theology. But I fear my words of encouragement are wasted. We have suggested this to you many times and you have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to our unity in the Gospel. Time and time again you have proven unable or unwilling to regard Calvinists as brothers and sisters in Christ. This persistent course of action you take shows a deep and disturbing problem in yourself.

The Archangel

Archangel, you do agree that this sentiment applies to "both sides of the street"?

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel, you do agree that this sentiment applies to "both sides of the street"?

Do I agree that there are Calvinists who are anti-Arminian? Yes. Do I agree that there are Arminians who are anti-Calvinists? Yes.

Are there persons here who are Calvinists who are proving themeselves to be anti-Arminian? Sadly, yes.

In my experience (which, of course, is not infallible), it seems to me that there are more Arminian-types that are anti-Calvinist than Calvinists who are anti-Arminian.

In our state convention, one leader has suggested that any Calvinist pastor coming into a church will automatically de-fund all missions efforts and, basically, preach a different Gospel. This type of thing is shameful

While I am unashamedly a 5-Point Calvinists, I am not a "Calviniser." I believe the initials "JC" stand for Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. Calvin was a brilliant man and he was a unique gift to the church. But, he was not perfect. I am much more concerned that the Gospel is preached, bringing persons to salvation in Christ.

There is more that can be said about methods of evangelism that I think are horrible--which one mostly sees on the Arminian side of things. But, that is a discussion for another time.

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

Do I agree that there are Calvinists who are anti-Arminian? Yes. Do I agree that there are Arminians who are anti-Calvinists? Yes.

Are there persons here who are Calvinists who are proving themeselves to be anti-Arminian? Sadly, yes.

In my experience (which, of course, is not infallible), it seems to me that there are more Arminian-types that are anti-Calvinist than Calvinists who are anti-Arminian.

In our state convention, one leader has suggested that any Calvinist pastor coming into a church will automatically de-fund all missions efforts and, basically, preach a different Gospel. This type of thing is shameful

While I am unashamedly a 5-Point Calvinists, I am not a "Calviniser." I believe the initials "JC" stand for Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. Calvin was a brilliant man and he was a unique gift to the church. But, he was not perfect. I am much more concerned that the Gospel is preached, bringing persons to salvation in Christ.

There is more that can be said about methods of evangelism that I think are horrible--which one mostly sees on the Arminian side of things. But, that is a discussion for another time.

The Archangel

On this we very much agree. As a lifelong SBC member, and all churches that I have been a part of, have all been of the "non-reformed" flavor, "we" have done a poor job on "informing and educating" the lay person. A result of this is shallowness in a multitude of dimensions. Often, people dont know why they believe what they believe, save for "they heard it" sometime in Sunday School. Does everyone need to attend seminary, NO, but nonetheless, we have been very ineffective in Christian doctrine and apolgetics.

 

[The Archangel]

On this we very much agree. As a lifelong SBC member, and all churches that I have been a part of, have all been of the "non-reformed" flavor, "we" have done a poor job on "informing and educating" the lay person. A result of this is shallowness in a multitude of dimensions. Often, people dont know why they believe what they believe, save for "they heard it" sometime in Sunday School. Does everyone need to attend seminary, NO, but nonetheless, we have been very ineffective in Christian doctrine and apolgetics.

Very true.

I think the SBC is facing a HUGE problem because of churches indoctrinating persons rather than educating them. Again, this is a topic for another discussion, but I'm glad to see we have agreement (and I am a long-time SBC guy too).

Maybe this would be a good thread to start?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Five, if I am not already included in that number. (Levity Luke, levity)

Old hmm....ever see the movie Star Wars & look at the character Yoda. How about Gandolf in the Trilogy Lord of the Rings or QuantumFaith as he's almost 50 & that makes him younger than I.

 

[quantumfaith]

Old hmm....ever see the movie Star Wars & look at the character Yoda. How about Gandolf in the Trilogy Lord of the Rings or QuantumFaith as he's almost 50 & that makes him younger than I.

I was calculating my age in modulo 11.

 

[glfredrick]

You are proving my point, I am not an Arm, I don't follow any man-made creed, I just try to follow what the Bible says. But to you I must be a Cal or an Arm. This is a conditioned mindset.

I am not threatened by you, and I am not trying to attack or threaten you as well. Some have called this a horrendous attack, but I am simply pointing out a behavior that is very common among Cals. I understand how it is perceived as an attack, but is impossible to discuss this subject without ruffling feathers.
No, you insisted repeatedly that I compare myself to those Arminian Articles, because that is all you can see, Cal, or Arm.

How about the next time you call me a "cal" I report you to the moderators? :wavey:

You are taking the liberties you accuse me of taking, when all I am doing is ASKING YOU TO STATE YOUR THEOLOGY so that I will no longer make a mistake about it.

 

[MB]

I am going to deal with just this for the moment. The rest is predicated on this premise, so answering what comes later will not really work for now.

Do you or do you not notice that Ephesians 1:4 says "before the foundation of the world?" How can one be in or out of Christ before creation even begins? I believe at that point, you have missed the main point of that passage.

I haven't missed anything I've studied the whole Bible. What you asked about how can one be in or out of Christ before creation ever begins. The beginning of the verse says.
"Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,"
We have been chosen once we are in Him before the foundation of the world. Simply God is not constricted by time because he is omnipresent. Only we are constricted by time. IOW's if we are never in Him we are never chosen.

Yes, we are "in Christ", and yes, we are only saved "by Christ." But the entire context of Eph 1:4 is "before the foundation of the world" and that "we were chosen" before we even existed, or before we could "act" so that God could see. Highlighting two words in this verse and building a theology upon them is probably not what the authors of Scripture would call "rightly dividing the Word."

Of course you rightly divide the Word in leaving out the In HIM and then say we are chosen before the foundation of the world before we are in Him. You can examine this verse any way you want to but the truth is we are not in Him before we are saved. That means election as Calvinist describe it it is not true. You have not been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world before Salvation. You and I were both born in sin we were both vessles of wrath meant for destruction until Salvation.

I'll be happy to delve further into the "in him" (en autos) phrase if you like, but the phrase has to be seen in context first and I believe that you are rather jumping to conclusions.

Jumping to conclusions is what you do best my friend. Your theory of election is proof of that.
The "in Him" part of the verse is something you won't get past, even in Greek. You simply were not in Him before the foundation of the world, you or even your spirit didn't even exist.

MB

 

[Winman]

Your suggestion that Calvinists are "being controlled" like the Germans were controlled by Hitler is laughable. You have no concept of reality in this matter.

Actually, Calvin and Hitler were very similar. Both were tyrants who ruled with an iron fist, imprisoned or executed dissenters including
friends, believed in the "elect", predestination...

They were amazingly similar men whether you admit it or not.

You know Winman, the problem is not that you are or aren't a Calvinist or an Arminian. The problem is that you don't like people who disagree with you.

I expect people to disagree with me.

Though you do not claim to be an Arminian, your theology is much closer to the Arminian understanding of theology--with the emphasis being on man being the initiator and God being the responder--even going far off by saying that grace is "merited favor." Be that as it may, that, again, is not the issue.

This is false and you know it, I believe the exact opposite, I believe that God is the intiator and man is the responder.

Doesn't surprise me that you interpret my views in reverse, you almost always interpret scripture in reverse as well.

The issue is that you are an anti-Calvinist, regardless of whatever theological tenets you hold or do not hold.

I believe it serious error.

Almost every Calvinist I know will gladly support an Arminian (or non-Calvinist, if you prefer). They may disagree with their theology, but they support the person as a brother or sister in Christ. Unfortunately, you do no such thing. You are so disgusted with the Calvinist position that you cannot separate a Calvinist brother from his theology.

If I hated you I would let you continue in error.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I was calculating my age in modulo 11.

:laugh: Hi Dave....I was always taught to respect my elders. Wipper Snappers :thumbsup:

I gotta go take a nap :sleep:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Im agast ....what history books are you reading?

" Actually, Calvin and Hitler were very similar. Both were tyrants who ruled with an iron fist, imprisoned or executed dissenters including friends, believed in the "elect", predestination...

They were amazingly similar men whether you admit it or not."


Thats a slanderious comment. Have you sunk that low? Your credibility is in question now.

 

[glfredrick]

Do I agree that there are Calvinists who are anti-Arminian? Yes. Do I agree that there are Arminians who are anti-Calvinists? Yes.

Are there persons here who are Calvinists who are proving themeselves to be anti-Arminian? Sadly, yes.

In my experience (which, of course, is not infallible), it seems to me that there are more Arminian-types that are anti-Calvinist than Calvinists who are anti-Arminian.

In our state convention, one leader has suggested that any Calvinist pastor coming into a church will automatically de-fund all missions efforts and, basically, preach a different Gospel. This type of thing is shameful

While I am unashamedly a 5-Point Calvinists, I am not a "Calviniser." I believe the initials "JC" stand for Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. Calvin was a brilliant man and he was a unique gift to the church. But, he was not perfect. I am much more concerned that the Gospel is preached, bringing persons to salvation in Christ.

There is more that can be said about methods of evangelism that I think are horrible--which one mostly sees on the Arminian side of things. But, that is a discussion for another time.

The Archangel

With you I'll stand!

 

[glfredrick]

I haven't missed anything I've studied the whole Bible. What you asked about how can one be in or out of Christ before creation ever begins. The beginning of the verse says.
"Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,"
We have been chosen once we are in Him before the foundation of the world. Simply God is not constricted by time because he is omnipresent. Only we are constricted by time. IOW's if we are never in Him we are never chosen.

So, God can only react to what He sees us doing? Just want to make sure that I am clear on your position.

Of course you rightly divide the Word in leaving out the In HIM and then say we are chosen before the foundation of the world before we are in Him. You can examine this verse any way you want to but the truth is we are not in Him before we are saved. That means election as Calvinist describe it it is not true. You have not been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world before Salvation. You and I were both born in sin we were both vessles of wrath meant for destruction until Salvation.

I don't recall that I left out anything... But the "in Him" is in context WITH the "we are chosen before the foundation of the world."

But, if Calvinist theology is true, then our ELECTION is our choosing, is it not? And would that not be a better explanation for this passage (and the myriad of others that say similar things) than some contrived effort to make God respond only to our actions?

I am in agreement with you that we were born in sin. I'm not sure that you take the next necessary step, however, that we are not "just" born in sin, but that we are "dead in our sin and trespasses."

As has been said time after time, dead people don't respond to anything unless God first makes that possible. You seem to have that reversed, that God only makes it possible because we DO respond.

Jumping to conclusions is what you do best my friend. Your theory of election is proof of that.

I've jumped nowhere... Especially to a place called "conclusions." And it is not "my" theory of election. It is God's revelation.

Are you prepared to dismiss EVERY verse of Scripture that says that God elects?

The "in Him" part of the verse is something you won't get past, even in Greek. You simply were not in Him before the foundation of the world, you or even your spirit didn't even exist.

That is EXACTLY what I said... Perhaps you are confused?

 

[Winman]

Im agast ....what history books are you reading?

" Actually, Calvin and Hitler were very similar. Both were tyrants who ruled with an iron fist, imprisoned or executed dissenters including friends, believed in the "elect", predestination...

They were amazingly similar men whether you admit it or not."


Thats a slanderious comment. Have you sunk that low? Your credibility is in question now.

This is a joke? Even Luke who is almost infatuated with Calvin freely admits he executed dozens of people, hardly the actions of a born again Christian. Step out of your Reformed library, the sun is shining outside.

 

[glfredrick]

Actually, Calvin and Hitler were very similar. Both were tyrants who ruled with an iron fist, imprisoned or executed dissenters including
friends, believed in the "elect", predestination...

They were amazingly similar men whether you admit it or not.

Really... Really... Calvin, a respected minister of the gospel, who gave the church the first complete commentary set apart from Roman Catholic thinking, and who forged new grounds for the operation of the church in an era when only Roman Catholicism was known equated with Hitler, a brutal butcher of men and a tyrant?

Why? Because under his city government one heretic was burned at the stake?

That was an issue that happened under his watch to be sure, but he was not the only one doing the burning in those days... You should probably read a bit of church history before you go off making yourself look rather ignorant.

I expect people to disagree with me.

That is quite self-evident.

By the way, which web site are you using to gather your information. I'll bet that if I did a decent search I could come up with it word for word...

Though you do not claim to be an Arminian, your theology is much closer to the Arminian understanding of theology--with the emphasis being on man being the initiator and God being the responder--even going far off by saying that grace is "merited favor." Be that as it may, that, again, is not the issue.

This is false and you know it, I believe the exact opposite, I believe that God is the intiator and man is the responder.

Then why don't you say so in your posts? As I recall, you have said most emphatically that MAN must have faith in God before God responds. You have said this not once, not twice, not even 10 times, but multiple, multiple times. I do not believe that you actually know your own theology for sure, or else you would simply respond and lay out what it is that you do hold so that we would no longer take you in error.

In fact, I have been asking you to do so now for several days in multiple threads. You feel that my asking is an attack, and you respond in kind. Why? Just tell us where you stand. Lay it out man!

Doesn't surprise me that you interpret my views in reverse, you almost always interpret scripture in reverse as well.

Tell me you are kidding... :laugh: I'd love to give you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I'll have to dredge up all those posts you have made over the past several days and paste them in.