Tozer- Calvinism tends to be more stable than Arminianism

[Luke2427]

Hi Luke, you are right, a label like non-Calvinist does not say what a person believers, only what they do not fully support which is Calvinism. Perhaps we could agree that Tozer was a non Calvinist, non Arminian Christian. To claim there are only two choices, Cal or Arm is to deny that both views hold some valid positions and some invalid positions. But that is the reality in my opinion.

Tozer was an Arminian. That he did not wish to call himself one is inconsequential as far as I am concerned.

I don't like everything about white people so I think I'll just call myself a non-white/ non-black person.

See how silly that is?

I am not claiming there are only two choices. I haven't done that once.

But you need to systematize your theology and then it becomes something we can identify and converse about.

You claim my views are not systematic, but you do not define your meaning.

Yes, I do claim this. Tell me- who systematized your theology?

What is your systematic theology called?

Again I use words as defined in the dictionary. So a Bible based theology that addresses the same doctrines as Calvinism, that has a unifying principle would be a "systematic theology."

No it does not.

Just saying, "I believe the Bible!" is not a systematic theology.

We all claim that- even Christian cults claim that.

Saying that you believe the Bible is a meaningless statement within the realm of Christianity.

It is like answering someone's request for you to describe yourself and you saying, "Well, I am a human being." Worthless.


Of course you believe the Bible. I contend that you just don't understand the Bible on the issues at hand.

I contend that John Calvin and St. Augustine and Martin Luther DID understand the Bible on these matters.

Since Calvin SYSTEMATIZED these doctrines we call this SYSTEM- Calvinism- after Calvin's proper understanding of how these truths from God's Word fit together.

That is why I ask you who systematized the doctrines that YOU think the Bible teaches.

Lets call mine the "Christian Minimalist Theology" where I affirm all scripture but avoid adding to it the speculations of past theologians such as Calvin.

No. That is not theology. Theology doesn't skirt MOST of the PRIMARY issues of the Faith.

Theology is a real STUDY of God. It is not a commitment NOT to study a whole LOT about God.

Calvinism fails the text of integrity, because it embraces paradoxes such as God predestines everything but is not the author of sin.

EVERY single doctrine of God traced back far enough yields the same type of "paradoxes."

We don't say, "THEN I WON'T STUDY GOD THEN!!!"

 

[Luke2427]

I am going to have to ask for a "little more" explantion of this. If you mean that one can prove something by contradiction, that being assuming something false to be true thus implying the contrapositive, then OK. If on the otherhand you mean to imply that you can can prove "truth" through faulty or fallacious premises, well not sure I can get my "thoughts" around that. As for the attorney illustration, yes quite often, attorney's in defense of their position simply try to toss up as much "mud" as possible hoping either that something sticks, or that the issue is suffiently muddled in the minds of the jurors so as to imply "reasonable doubt".

I will also add that in mathematics deductive reasoning (general to specific) is the "easier" form of reasoning than inductive reasoning (specific to general).

Just study the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and you will see what I was saying.

Inductive, though not a sure thing, is valid. That is what the OP utilizes.

Things that don't NECESSARILY follow, but seem to, can add up to be properly persuasive if there are enough of them and they are compelling enough.

 

[Iconoclast]

Theology is a real STUDY of God. It is not a commitment NOT to study a whole LOT about God.

:thumbs::thumbs: especially in a debate forum

 

[Van]

Lets see:
1) Calvinism is not a systematic theology because it does not fit together, for on one hand it says God predestines everything, yet on the other says God does not predestine sin.

Was this point refuted or simply denied? denied.

2) My view, called CMT, is systematic and addresses all the doctrines Calvinism addresses. This was said to not be systematic because it does not address unnamed doctrines. Fiddlesticks.

3) The claim was repeated that Tozer was Arminian, because it was claimed Arminianism sometimes includes eternal security. But no published source was referenced, and so the claim appears to be fiction. One of the five doctrines is believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. Since Tozer did not agree with this premise, he was not an Arminian by definition.

4) I was charged with "skirting" most of the primary issues of the faith, but they were not mentioned specifically. Thus just another generalized charge having no substance. This is all Calvinism has, deny their own doctrines and make general disparaging statements about those who hold other views.

Calvinism [edited] cannot be supported biblically. The bible says no one seeks God but leaves unsaid whether this means at any time or some of the time. Calvinists claim it means at any time yet verse after verse says otherwise, such as Romans 7, and so no one seeks God at all times but some do seek God some of the time is the correct understanding of the passage. The idea is we are all under sin and since we all sin, for no one seeks God all the time, we are condemned whether under the law or apart from the law.

 

[jbh28]

The bible says no one seeks God but leaves unsaid whether this means at any time or some of the time.

um, unless it said, some of the time, it means all the time.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Let me get this straight.....who is insulting & arrogant again? :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You guys should listen to this sermon from Al Martin, Pastor @ Trinity Reformed Basptist Church in Montville

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=621111142170

Sadly, for me anyway, he retired 2 yrs ago after 40 yrs service to the church......New Jersey hasnt been the same since.

Titled : Sovereignty of God 16/17 Objections: Doesn't This Make Man a Puppet?; HyperCalvinism

 

[webdog]

um, unless it said, some of the time, it means all the time.

unless it says all of the time, it means no one seeks God.

Now the context concerning who "no one" is needs its own thread.

 

[jbh28]

unless it says all of the time, it means no one seeks God.

Now the context concerning who "no one" is needs its own thread.

Could be a good discussion. I'm watching the Braves play right now though.

 

[JesusFan]

Well stated Winman! :thumbs:

just as long as you add in the caviat that since the results of the fall., NONE of us born really have a "free will" remaining, that we are constrained and limited by sinful human flesh and wills oppossed to God...

 

[JesusFan]

Lets see:
1) Calvinism is not a systematic theology because it does not fit together, for on one hand it says God predestines everything, yet on the other says God does not predestine sin.

Actually, MOST here would say that God determines some things, permits some things, ALL things are done in His plans and purposes, uses BOTH to accomplish his end goals!

Was this point refuted or simply denied? denied.

Misunderstood!

2) My view, called CMT, is systematic and addresses all the doctrines Calvinism addresses. This was said to not be systematic because it does not address unnamed doctrines. Fiddlesticks.

3) The claim was repeated that Tozer was Arminian, because it was claimed Arminianism sometimes includes eternal security. But no published source was referenced, and so the claim appears to be fiction. One of the five doctrines is believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. Since Tozer did not agree with this premise, he was not an Arminian by definition.

Actually, IF he believes that God can save ANY that he sends general grace to all to be able to accept/reject Jesus, would be an Arm!

4) I was charged with "skirting" most of the primary issues of the faith, but they were not mentioned specifically. Thus just another generalized charge having no substance. This is all Calvinism has, deny their own doctrines and make general disparaging statements about those who hold other views.

Are you still holding though to Open theism, that God cannot/does not know All things?

Calvinism [edited] cannot be supported biblically. The bible says no one seeks God but leaves unsaid whether this means at any time or some of the time. Calvinists claim it means at any time yet verse after verse says otherwise, such as Romans 7, and so no one seeks God at all times but some do seek God some of the time is the correct understanding of the passage. The idea is we are all under sin and since we all sin, for no one seeks God all the time, we are condemned whether under the law or apart from the law.

Men seek after God due to general revelation of nature, per Romans but NONE can get saved apart from a special revelation from God, Bible and Gospel, and TAHT only can be received when God enables one to be able to receive it!

 

[Van]

Hi Jesusfan, I agree most Calvinists that post on this board would deny that God predestines all things, but Boettner presented that view as Calvinism. Why have you not posted "God does not predestine all things." Pretty clear statement, but it would be non Calvinistic. To claim I misunderstand Calvinist is simply to attack my qualifications, which as you know is supporting your position with a logical fallacy. Is that all you have?

So if someone agrees with one of the five doctrines of Arminianism, then they are Arminian, but if they agree with one of the five Tulip doctrines they are not a Calvinist. Strange set of rules you employ to support your view.

My view addresses Omniscience, and supports inherent omniscience, so that issue has not been skirted but fully supported scripturally. The Calvinist view has been shown to be unbiblical in that it denies God can remember no more forever.

The issue is not that men cannot be saved apart from the special revelation of the Bible, we both agree with that (we both agree the gospel is the power of God for salvation), but the issue is can men of flesh understand the milk of the gospel per 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Calvinism denies this biblical truth.

In summary Tozer had a very sound view of doctrine, and while I think he missed the mark in some areas, he was correct to reject Calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hi Jesusfan, I agree most Calvinists that post on this board would deny that God predestines all things, but Boettner presented that view as Calvinism. Why have you not posted "God does not predestine all things." Pretty clear statement, but it would be non Calvinistic. To claim I misunderstand Calvinist is simply to attack my qualifications, which as you know is supporting your position with a logical fallacy. Is that all you have?

So if someone agrees with one of the five doctrines of Arminianism, then they are Arminian, but if they agree with one of the five Tulip doctrines they are not a Calvinist. Strange set of rules you employ to support your view.

My view addresses Omniscience, and supports inherent omniscience, so that issue has not been skirted but fully supported scripturally. The Calvinist view has been shown to be unbiblical in that it denies God can remember no more forever.

The issue is not that men cannot be saved apart from the special revelation of the Bible, we both agree with that (we both agree the gospel is the power of God for salvation), but the issue is can men of flesh understand the milk of the gospel per 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Calvinism denies this biblical truth.

In summary Tozer had a very sound view of doctrine, and while I think he missed the mark in some areas, he was correct to reject Calvinism.

Out of Curosity Van....did you get a chanse to listen to Al Martins sermon on post # 87?

 

[JesusFan]

Hi Jesusfan, I agree most Calvinists that post on this board would deny that God predestines all things, but Boettner presented that view as Calvinism. Why have you not posted "God does not predestine all things." Pretty clear statement, but it would be non Calvinistic. To claim I misunderstand Calvinist is simply to attack my qualifications, which as you know is supporting your position with a logical fallacy. Is that all you have?

You do know that there are shades of differences among Cals here, correct?

That there are 4/5 pointers, some strict reformed, others more "baptist?"

So if someone agrees with one of the five doctrines of Arminianism, then they are Arminian, but if they agree with one of the five Tulip doctrines they are not a Calvinist. Strange set of rules you employ to support your view.

see the above!

My view addresses Omniscience, and supports inherent omniscience, so that issue has not been skirted but fully supported scripturally. The Calvinist view has been shown to be unbiblical in that it denies God can remember no more forever.

Think it has been biblical proven thatGod remembers it no more in sense NOT holding it against us, NOT that He literally forgot it!


The issue is not that men cannot be saved apart from the special revelation of the Bible, we both agree with that (we both agree the gospel is the power of God for salvation), but the issue is can men of flesh understand the milk of the gospel per 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Calvinism denies this biblical truth.

Denies that depraived man has the capacity to be be able in themselves to be able to place faith in jesus, need to have Grace applied to them by God

In summary Tozer had a very sound view of doctrine, and while I think he missed the mark in some areas, he was correct to reject Calvinism.

Some good teachers NOT cal, so why the attack on cal so much?

 

[Luke2427]

Hi Jesusfan, I agree most Calvinists that post on this board would deny that God predestines all things,

I think you are wrong on this- it depends on how you define "predestine".

All of us, I bet, believe that God purposed for everything to happen exactly as it happens.

So if someone agrees with one of the five doctrines of Arminianism, then they are Arminian, but if they agree with one of the five Tulip doctrines they are not a Calvinist. Strange set of rules you employ to support your view.

But you agree with FOUR of the five doctrines of Arminianism.

That makes you a moderate Arminian, right?

My view addresses Omniscience, and supports inherent omniscience, so that issue has not been skirted but fully supported scripturally. The Calvinist view has been shown to be unbiblical in that it denies God can remember no more forever.

NNE but the Open theist interprets that verse to mean that God literally forgets.

There cannot be something knowable that God does not know and God be omniscient at the same time.

God cannot LITERALLY forget.

The issue is not that men cannot be saved apart from the special revelation of the Bible, we both agree with that (we both agree the gospel is the power of God for salvation), but the issue is can men of flesh understand the milk of the gospel per 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Calvinism denies this biblical truth.

Calvinism confirms this passage- that the natural man CANNOT receive the things of the spirit of God.

The natural man must become something else besides just natural- he must become spiritual. That happens upon regeneration.

 

[Van]

Hi Jesusfan, there are in fact differences in what those defending Calvinism post, which reinforces the incoherent nature of Calvinism. I present published views which can be verified on line. Thus God predestines all things, including sin is actual Calvinism as presented by Boettner. You have yet to say "God does not predestine all things."

Tozer is not a Calvinist or Arminian if you use published definitions, which is what I said in the first place. Telling me that Baptists generally believer in eternal security, making them non-Arminian, and General Atonement, making them non-Calvinist does not make Tozer an Arminian.

What has been demonstrated is that many believers believe that God not remembering our sins simply means He remembers them but will not use them against us. But as I showed with about a dozen scriptural references, the Bible clearly indicates God puts the memory out of his mind, chucks it into the sea or behind him, so to speak. I accept the plain reading of the text because that does not create any conflict in all other scripture, just as Jesus being all knowing according to Peter, John 21, does not conflict with Jesus not knowing the time of His return. All knowing does not refer to everything imaginable, that takes the phrase out of context.

The systematic use of the minimal approach provides the best chance of correctly understanding scripture, and not adding to it, as Calvinism has done, in my opinion.

My original post did not attack Calvinism in this thread, see post #12

 

[Van]

Hi Luke, your statement that only an Open Theist would believe this way or that way is simply an effort to misrepresent my view. I have posted on it extensively.

I am not a moderate Arminan, Arminianism is false doctrine, just as Calvinism is false doctrine. Both views hold some valid positions, but both completely miss the mark by adding to scripture a boat load of conjecture.

And while I am at it, did I say God forgets unintentially like I do? Nope. He can put knowledge out of His mind and remember it no more forever.

 

[Luke2427]

Hi Luke, your statement that only an Open Theist would believe this way or that way is simply an effort to misrepresent my view. I have posted on it extensively.

I am not a moderate Arminan, Arminianism is false doctrine, just as Calvinism is false doctrine. Both views hold some valid positions, but both completely miss the mark by adding to scripture a boat load of conjecture.

And while I am at it, did I say God forgets unintentially like I do? Nope. He can put knowledge out of His mind and remember it no more forever.

Two things:

What about Arminianism (besides the accepted view on eternal security) do you think is false.

I bet I can show you that Arminianism represents what you believe very well.

Secondly, God cannt put knwoledge out of his mind. That is silly and heterodox.

God cannot cease to be omniscient any more than God can cease to be omnipotent.

The moment God forgets or lacks in power at all is the moment God stops being God.

That is Theology 101.

 

[JesusFan]

Two things:

What about Arminianism (besides the accepted view on eternal security) do you think is false.

I bet I can show you that Arminianism represents what you believe very well.

Secondly, God cannt put knwoledge out of his mind. That is silly and heterodox.

God cannot cease to be omniscient any more than God can cease to be omnipotent.

The moment God forgets or lacks in power at all is the moment God stops being God.

That is Theology 101.

Think cannot allow to have God all knowing, as that seems to "jam up" his belief in the "total" free will of man!

 

[MB]

Tozer-
"To square the records, however, it should be said that if the Calvinist does not rise as high [phlegmatically], he usually stays up longer. He places more emphasis on the Holy Scriptures which never change, while his opposite number (as the newspapers say) tends to judge his spiritual condition by the state of his feelings, which change constantly. This may be the reason that so many Calvinistic churches remain orthodox for centuries, at least in doctrine, while many churches of the Arminian persuasion often go liberal in one generation."

Do you agree with Tozer?

Do Calvinists seem to be more stable emotionally than "non-cals"?

Their denominations have certainly tended to withstand the onslaught of liberalism and heterodoxy a great deal better than "non-cals".

Emotionalism is often related to the fall of theology.

Pentecostals are BY AND LARGE Arminian (perhaps 99.9999999 percent?) and they tend to be VERY unstable emotionally and less able to defend their doctrines, don't they?

Calvinists tend to be more educated too, don't they?

It would be hard to prove this statistically I suppose, but it has been my experience everywhere I have been.

Presbyterian denominations tend to be VERY demanding educationally of their ministers, for example.

IFB churches and non-reformed Baptist churches do not. And often those folks who are members in those churches are not very educated- at least this has been what I have observed.

I come from the Free Will Baptist movement and it is THOROUGHLY Arminian and it doesn't even HAVE a real seminary in the entire DENOMINATION! (some count Hillsdale but most Free Wills I know would not).

The main Presbyterian church in town, it has been my experience, tends to be the home church of the more educated folks.

Arminianism has seemed to appeal throughout history to the more sensational, emotional masses. It was spread across our land by, what I would consider to be, very shallow emotional tent revivals and camp meetings.

Doesn't it seem to be the case that the more educated one is the less he experiences often reoccurring fits of emotional highs and emotional lows?

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

Could it be that as our culture dipped a hundred + years ago into low education and heavy emotionalism that THAT is related to the rise of Arminianism in our religious culture?

Could that rise of Arminianism be related to the liberalism that has overtook our culture at the same time?

Tozer, an Arminian, noted that Arminianism tends to liberalism and Calvinism tends to stand many generations before falling into liberalism.

I think they are related.

I think the surge of Calvinism in the SBC and her return to the Fundamentals of the Faith are related as well.

Well let me see first of all Tozer wasn't either Calvinist or Arminian and what is funny is that you would believe what the papers say but you refuse to believe in the truth of scripture. Since Tozer is dead I guess he can't defend himself.
MB