Tozer- Calvinism tends to be more stable than Arminianism

[JesusFan]

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.

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

Calvinism fails the text of integrity, because it embraces paradoxes such as God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. So it is Calvinism and not CMT that is not systematic as defined in the dictionary.

You do realise that MOST Cals would tend to see God having 2 Wills? determinitive and permissive? That he does NOT cause Evil and Sin, but does allow them in order to have His purposes done and accomplished?

IF we go by "inconsistent" than isn't the fact of trinity in question, as HOW can we understand without revelation from God that He is both 3 and 1?

 

[quantumfaith]

As I said, I do not deny nor do I confirm that the arguments made are not without error.

I am not saying it is CERTAIN- I am saying- here is the evidence for my proposition.

Logical fallacies only apply when the conclusion is said to be certain.

We can inductively reason utilizing logical fallacies.

That is what a prosecuting attorney does. Evidence that may not NECESSARILY follow- but enough of it applied INductively is sufficient.

I think that is what we have.




Yes there is- I provided it in the OP.

The rise of Arminianism and liberalism and backwoodsy Christianity (as opposed to that which once came from the pulpits of Harvard and Princeton and Brown, etc... educated pastors) coincides with the decline of Calvinism.

That is not proof POSITIVE- but it is certainly acceptable evidence.

PERHAPS it is not sufficient- but it is evidence nonetheless.



Yea, well I wouldn't have quoted him as an authority- which BTW is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Be consistent dear brother!

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).

 

[JesusFan]

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 curious...

ANY here on BB ever figure out how the Church actually managed to stay spiritually strong and powerful without either systems of Calvinism or Armianism in the Church?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just curious...

ANY here on BB ever figure out how the Church actually managed to stay spiritually strong and powerful without either systems of Calvinism or Armianism in the Church?

What Church?

 

[mandym]

What Church?

Seriously?////////////

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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).

Ahhhh, you wish then to completely understand the mind of God....LOL ...good luck with that....all I can say is Creature / Creator (add Job into the mix)

 

[Van]

We have been all through it Jesus fan, you defend Calvinism with fiction. According to Total Spiritual Inability, no fallen man can do other than sin, he must always "choose" sin and never "seeks" God. That makes God the author of sin. You say God allows man to sin but does not allow him to seek God. Nonsense. Word games. Evasion. Fiction. As I said, never met a Calvinist, except a Hyper Calvinist, that admitted to his or her beliefs.
Not one.

Next you try to justify pushing inconsistent positions because the Trinity which we all embrace, is a paradox. No sale. The doctrine of the Trinity fits with all scripture better than any other view. God predestining everything yet God not being the author of sin does not fit with most scripture. The non-Calvinist view is God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, the Calvinist view is God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass. Now someone with the integrity of EWF would say no, but I already quoted Loettner, demonstrating my view of Calvinism represents the published view.

We have seen the dodge of God "allowing" people to sin, when he has prevented them from ever seeking forgiveness in their fallen state. Again, the non-Cal view is fallen man is predisposed to sin, and is corrupted, but some of the time fallen men seek God just as Paul describes in Romans chapter 7. Our non-Cal view is biblical, Calvinism is non-biblical and is based on nullifying scripture after scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

Just curious...

ANY here on BB ever figure out how the Church actually managed to stay spiritually strong and powerful without either systems of Calvinism or Armianism in the Church?

I am sorry, I do not understand your question. Can you "quantify" it?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Seriously?////////////

Yea.....Universal? Baptist? RC ....what church

 

[JesusFan]

What Church?

Church of the FirstBorn

All of those whose name was wriiten Book of life since before Foundation of the World!

just a side note: NOT named the "First baptist Church of heaven"

Bu the Bride and Body of Christ!

 

[mandym]

Yea.....Universal? Baptist? RC ....what church

talk about trying to be difficult

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We have been all through it Jesus fan, you defend Calvinism with fiction. According to Total Spiritual Inability, no fallen man can do other than sin, he must always "choose" sin and never "seeks" God. That makes God the author of sin. You say God allows man to sin but does not allow him to seek God. Nonsense. Word games. Evasion. Fiction. As I said, never met a Calvinist, except a Hyper Calvinist, that admitted to his or her beliefs.
Not one.

Next you try to justify pushing inconsistent positions because the Trinity which we all embrace, is a paradox. No sale. The doctrine of the Trinity fits with all scripture better than any other view. God predestining everything yet God not being the author of sin does not fit with most scripture. The non-Calvinist view is God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, the Calvinist view is God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass. Now someone with the integrity of EWF would say no, but I already quoted Loettner, demonstrating my view of Calvinism represents the published view.

We have seen the dodge of God "allowing" people to sin, when he has prevented them from ever seeking forgiveness in their fallen state. Again, the non-Cal view is fallen man is predisposed to sin, and is corrupted, but some of the time fallen men seek God just as Paul describes in Romans chapter 7. Our non-Cal view is biblical, Calvinism is non-biblical and is based on nullifying scripture after scripture.

The flaw rest with you my friend since you clearly do not understand predestination & so therefore Critique DoG . your whole desire is to make DoG something you can point to & criticize while pointing to yourself & patting yourself on the back & being right with God. Why even have dialog with you....clearly you already have all the answers evidenced by your last inflammatory comments ( Our non-Cal view is biblical, Calvinism is non-biblical and is based on nullifying scripture after scripture) .......could you be more full of yourself & more arrogant. I advise all my brethren to ignore you when you act that way so you can argue essentially to yourself.....which I fear you do anyway.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

talk about trying to be difficult

Thats your perspective....I merely asked a simple question. Care to answer it?

 

[Aaron]

Just curious...

ANY here on BB ever figure out how the Church actually managed to stay spiritually strong and powerful without either systems of Calvinism or Armianism in the Church?

You'll have to define "strong" and "powerful." Do you mean "strong" and "powerful" as the 7000 hiding from Jezebel and Ahab when it seemed all Israel had bowed the knee to Baal? My answer is God preserves a remnant. But if you mean "strong" and "powerful" as Josiah's reforms, then I have to question whether you really know church history.

Christ, and He alone, is the source of the life of the Church. No one is disputing that.

Your living body has systems: circulatory, nervous, digestive, etc. The body cannot live without them, yet none of them are the source of the life of the body. Theology has always been systematic. That's it's nature. It's the work God has given His ministers. Saying the body of Christ cannot live without a true systematic theology is not saying that systematic theology is the source of the life of the Church.

It hasn't always been called Calvinism, but that's what it's known as now after the dark ages of Romanism. Corrupt it, and death is near.

 

[Van]

Lets see the Calvinist play book one more time.

1) Say the opponent does not understand Calvinism.

2) Say what is Calvinism is not Calvinism.

3) Say the motives of those who hold differing views are unChristian.

4) Say those who differ are driven by pride, arrogance and so forth.

5) Say posting something that differs from Calvinism is "inflamatory" and so forth.

6) Plead with others not to try to present what they believe is biblical, to avoid exposing the DoG is the light of truth.

And the beat goes on.

Calvinism is false doctrine, in that the TULI of the tulip are unbiblical.

 

[jbh28]

According to Total Spiritual Inability, no fallen man can do other than sin, he must always "choose" sin and never "seeks" God.

Romans 3:11. Also, it doesn't mean that a person is as evil as he can be.

That makes God the author of sin.

Not even close. Man is the author of his sin, not God.

You say God allows man to sin but does not allow him to seek God.

Never said that God doesn't allow him to seek God.

Lets see the Calvinist play book one more time.

1) Say the opponent does not understand Calvinism.

I'm beginning to stop saying "not understand" and change that into purposefully misrepresent.

2) Say what is Calvinism is not Calvinism.

It's always interesting when non-cals believe they understand my doctrine better than myself. You build straw men and then claim we say Calvinism isn't Calvinism....

5) Say posting something that differs from Calvinism is "inflamatory"[sic] and so forth.

no, having a view isn't inflammatory, but what you posted was.

6) Plead with others not to try to present what they believe is biblical, to avoid exposing the DoG is the light of truth.

No, you said our view wasn't biblical; that we don't base it on the Bible.

Maybe if you would stop playing with the straws, you would be taken seriously. Instead, you like to build straw man and post inflammatory posts.

I advise all my brethren to ignore you when you act that way so you can argue essentially to yourself

good thought. One that is not going to represent their opponent correct isn't worth engaging in a discussion.

 

[Winman]

Calvinists say that God decrees all things come to pass, but does not cause all things that come to pass. I understand this distinction. God does not cause a man to commit murder, but he allows it by his decree, otherwise this murder could not take place. However, this proves free will exists, God is allowing the murderer to act upon his own motives, as no evil motives can possibly originate with God. If the motive to murder did not originate with God, it MUST have originated with the murderer. Therefore we see man is able to act according to his own motives and free will is affirmed.

 

[StefanM]

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.

I believe his point would be that some of the "fallacies" are not necessarily inherently logically contradictory, if one does not make absolute statements.

The appeal to authority, for example, is logically unsound if one takes it absolutely. If one, however, appeals to an authority as support for an argument in a non-absolute sense, it is not necessarily fallacious.

It is reasonable to give greater weight to a statement made by an authority in the field, as long as you acknowledge that the statement is not necessarily true simply because the authority made it. It may be likely true, however, as an authority in a field would probably be knowledgeable about the topic.

Similarly, ad hominem arguments are not necessarily unsound if the issue is relevant to the topic, if not taken in an absolutely sense. For instance, if an alcoholic states, "Alcohol doesn't have any negative effects," then it is reasonable to bring up the fact that the individual is an alcoholic, as it would impact the objectivity of the statement.

 

[quantumfaith]

I believe his point would be that some of the "fallacies" are not necessarily inherently logically contradictory, if one does not make absolute statements.

The appeal to authority, for example, is logically unsound if one takes it absolutely. If one, however, appeals to an authority as support for an argument in a non-absolute sense, it is not necessarily fallacious.

It is reasonable to give greater weight to a statement made by an authority in the field, as long as you acknowledge that the statement is not necessarily true simply because the authority made it. It may be likely true, however, as an authority in a field would probably be knowledgeable about the topic.

Similarly, ad hominem arguments are not necessarily unsound if the issue is relevant to the topic, if not taken in an absolutely sense. For instance, if an alcoholic states, "Alcohol doesn't have any negative effects," then it is reasonable to bring up the fact that the individual is an alcoholic, as it would impact the objectivity of the statement.

Thank You :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinists say that God decrees all things come to pass, but does not cause all things that come to pass. I understand this distinction. God does not cause a man to commit murder, but he allows it by his decree, otherwise this murder could not take place. However, this proves free will exists, God is allowing the murderer to act upon his own motives, as no evil motives can possibly originate with God. If the motive to murder did not originate with God, it MUST have originated with the murderer. Therefore we see man is able to act according to his own motives and free will is affirmed.

Well stated Winman! :thumbs: