Tozer- Calvinism tends to be more stable than Arminianism

Doesn't it seem that the more poor or uneducated or "backwoodsy" a person is the more they tend to be VERY emotional?


Now I dont understand this above comment at all... I hope you can explain it so it does NOT sound inflammatory.

 

I agree EWF. Luke, there were some factual observations in your post --but most of the OP comes off sounding prideful and condescending. You're not going to gain any traction with that attitude.

 

Tozer was arminian? I knew him personally for years, and I DIDN't know that. In that era, and even to-day, there is a large group, even amongst baptists, that are neither calvinists or arminian. Someone needs to study theology a little better, without the labels and strict definitions.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't know him but have read much by him. He is in no way an Arminian. Some folks think the opposite of reformed is Arminian. It is a myopic view from those who cannot think outside of a systematic box.

 

From reading his work, I never knew it either.

So true. I'm in that group that isn't in either camp. Not knowing ( never read or heard him say) I would have said he was in neither camp and that is from hearing him preach and reading his work.

Again Jim, I agree with you.

 

Wow what a means spirited OP full of pseudo-intellectual hubris.

But this is what we've come go expect by this point.

 

Mandym, I agree and I might add it seems that some folks think that if its not reformed then it is Arminian. I agree with Jim that there are plenty of folks who would not consider themselves in neither camp (self included). I venture to say that no one on this BB would think they could lose their salvation. I've heard it said, "If I had to choose between dancing with a Calvinist or an Arminian, and I could not choose otherwise, I would dance with the Arminian."

Luke, in light of your comments above, how would you explain the calvinist Westboro Baptist Church? Perhaps an anomaly? (I hope so and think so) I would think that any person who lives in doubt of salvation is going to have problems as you've discussed.

Jim, I don't think he was saying Tozer was Arminian. I have read some of Tozer (and want to read more). Tozer has an admirable skill with written expression.

 

To the OP: Are we not better off discussing theology rather than taking swipes at the intellect and education of those with whom we disagree? It is a tactic, and I think you know it. If we discredit those who hold a view we discredit the view (it is also a rhetorical fallacy called appeal to authority).

No, there are some great minds who count themselves as among the non-Calvinists. I have learned much from men like C.S. Lewis and even Clark Pinnock, to name just two. And I know plenty of knuckle-headed Calvinists.

And that is all beside the point. A view rises or falls on its merit, not on its adherents. Truth is truth because it is true, not because smart people believe it or because dumb ones reject it. This is an offensive post.

 

Luke's third to last line says,"Tozer, an Arminian, noted that Arminianism tends to liberalism and Calvinism tends to stand many generations before falling into liberalism."

If I'm reading that correctly, he did say it, or I think he did.

 

You are correct. I don't think was Arminian at all.

 

I think Tozer was a non-Calvinist, but was not an Arminian either. He and I share in our understanding of the Bible, which is to say I happen to hold his published views in many areas.

Here is some of what he said: Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What dost thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon his creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

How many times have you seen me post about "limited free will?"

We both believe God can be soveriegn and grant autonomous choice to His creation, something Calvinists deny. Calvinists say that because of man's total spiritual inability they cannot choose life unless altered and then they can only choose life is the Calvinist mistaken view.

On the other hand, Tozer believed once God saved a person, He keeps them such that they are saved forever, and thus God limits further the "limited free will" of the saved such that they cannot will to turn from their faith and devotion to Christ.

So "non-Cal" is the correct label or so it seems to me.

 

Who's Tozer.... never heard of him! Thats not saying much. Will do a google search.

 

True calvinism adopts the absolute sovereignty. In regards to humanity, it employes the Permissive Will of God. Man is able to do as he chooses, but with the limitations that God may place upon him.

Tozer was a minister of the Avenue Road Alliance Church in Toronto, Canada when he died on his knees in prayer. He was always Christian and Missionary Alliance, and they held to an open calvinistic theology, with more emphasis on man's free choice and certain gifts.

Cheers,

Jim

 

On the question, did Luke say Tozer was an Arminian?

Was Tozer an Arminian? He didn't consider himself one. Others, especially Calvinists, describe him as one.

If you're of the opinion that there are only two lines of thought, then Tozer by default would fall somewhere on the Arminian side of the line. However, if you think there's a third, or fourth, or other line, then those would have to be defined and described.

And that's all off topic, by the way, and doesn't address the OP.

 

As for the opening post, some basic elements of that addressed Calvinists and educated vice poor and uneducated.

I humbly submit the following:
1 Cor 12:23-25 And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness. For our comely [parts] have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another.

Just sayin'.

 

Don....did you read Jim 1999's posts? Jim knew the guy ( & BTW Jim is a Calvinist)

 

Yep, I did; and I knew Jim was a Calvinist.

Re-reading my post, I didn't mean to imply "all" Calvinists think Tozer was Arminian. I would have been more correct by writing "Others, especially some Calvinists...."

 

Just so folks won't think I'm ignoring them: I'm heading off for a hernia surgery now. Be back in a few days. Y'all take care.

 

Tozer did indeed seem to deny the Reformed doctrine of soteriology, because in his book "The Pursuit of God" he affirms the doctrine of "prevenient grace," which is basically an acknowledgement of God having sought the man before the man can seek God, but it still denies that the ultimate choice is in God's hands.

After doing some searching, I can't seem to find any Calvinistic or Reformed sites that Claim him as such.. in fact, most claim him to be Arminian but having good work of literature. There is one or two blogs that seem to claim him but I can't find anything more than that.

And as far as I can remember he did not hold to irresistible grace either, but will need to check some more