Unqualified Rhetoric

[Reformed]

SavedByMercy made the following comment in another thread:

I would say that Arminians who have not embraced the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel are unbelievers...

Am I the only Calvinist who takes umbrage with this statement?

I would start by asking what type of Arminian SBM is describing. I have found that a great many Synergists do not consider themselves Arminian (although they are) and bristle at being labeled such. They would say that man does not cooperate with God in salvation, even though that is exactly what their soteriology advocates. They maintain a sort of theological cognitive dissonance.

A true Arminian (or better yet, a convinced Arminian) would take immense pride in saying that man cooperates with God in salvation. The true Arminian would probably hold to other doctrinal distinctives that would separate him from the modern Synergist we find today in broad evangelicalism, such as denying original sin and perseverance of the saints. However the modern day Arminian is actually a Synergist who enjoys a happy inconsistency within his synergistic belief system. To accuse them of being unbelievers is an incredible statement that displays hubris and ignorance.

 

[DHK]

SavedByMercy made the following comment in another thread:



Am I the only Calvinist who takes umbrage with this statement?

I would start by asking what type of Arminian SBM is describing. I have found that a great many Synergists do not consider themselves Arminian (although they are) and bristle at being labeled such. They would say that man does not cooperate with God in salvation, even though that is exactly what their soteriology advocates. They maintain a sort of theological cognitive dissonance.

A true Arminian (or better yet, a convinced Arminian) would take immense pride in saying that man cooperates with God in salvation. The true Arminian would probably hold to other doctrinal distinctives that would separate him from the modern Synergist we find today in broad evangelicalism, such as denying original sin and perseverance of the saints. However the modern day Arminian is actually a Synergist who enjoys a happy inconsistency within his synergistic belief system. To accuse them of being unbelievers is an incredible statement that displays hubris and ignorance.

He is a regular poster in the Other Christian Denom. Forum, and has made such statements many times. So, no you are not the only one that has been offended by such. Many of us have.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

SavedByMercy made the following comment in another thread:



Am I the only Calvinist who takes umbrage with this statement?

I would start by asking what type of Arminian SBM is describing. I have found that a great many Synergists do not consider themselves Arminian (although they are) and bristle at being labeled such. They would say that man does not cooperate with God in salvation, even though that is exactly what their soteriology advocates. They maintain a sort of theological cognitive dissonance.

A true Arminian (or better yet, a convinced Arminian) would take immense pride in saying that man cooperates with God in salvation. The true Arminian would probably hold to other doctrinal distinctives that would separate him from the modern Synergist we find today in broad evangelicalism, such as denying original sin and perseverance of the saints. However the modern day Arminian is actually a Synergist who enjoys a happy inconsistency within his synergistic belief system. To accuse them of being unbelievers is an incredible statement that displays hubris and ignorance.

Would you say then that they are in rebellion?

 

[convicted1]

Bro. Squire stated this in the newly closed thread...

This statement seems to question our salvation.

There's no 'seems' about it...:tear:

 

[Reformed]

Would you say then that they are in rebellion?

I would say that those who know the right thing to do and do not do it are in rebellion. When I was a Synergist I was 100% convinced I was right. I was wrong but not in rebellion.

 

[convicted1]

I would say that those who know the right thing to do and do not do it are in rebellion. When I was a Synergist I was 100% convinced I was right. I was wrong but not in rebellion.

Same with me...

 

[steaver]

Am I the only Calvinist who takes umbrage with this statement?

To accuse them of being unbelievers is an incredible statement that displays hubris and ignorance.

But SBM, like all Calvinist, claims their beliefs come directly from God through "Divine Enablement". You will hear statements such as "God opened my eyes".

Now if SBM can be so "ignorant" concerning TULIP verses the Gospel, what does that say about his beliefs on Calvinism itself? Who decides what "God has opened to the eyes" and what He has not?

 

[PreachTony]

He is a regular poster in the Other Christian Denom. Forum, and has made such statements many times. So, no you are not the only one that has been offended by such. Many of us have.

Yeah, if we were to list off all the various statements SBM has made recently, including complete misinterpretations of scripture, ignoring or downright removing words from scripture to make the text say what he wants it to say, and now calling into question the salvation of many BB members, well, it would take a long time to list it all.

 

[BobRyan]

A true Arminian (or better yet, a convinced Arminian) would take immense pride in saying that man cooperates with God in salvation. The true Arminian would probably hold to other doctrinal distinctives that would separate him from the modern Synergist we find today in broad evangelicalism, such as denying original sin and perseverance of the saints. However the modern day Arminian is actually a Synergist who enjoys a happy inconsistency within his synergistic belief system. To accuse them of being unbelievers is an incredible statement that displays hubris and ignorance.

I consider myself a true Arminian - so then synergist by definition.

Articles of Remonstrance. These articles asserted that

1. Salvation (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the graciously enabled faith (or unbelief) of man;
2. the Atonement is qualitatively adequate for all men, "yet that no one actually enjoys [experiences] this forgiveness of sins, except the believer..." and thus is limited to only those who trust in Christ;
3. "That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will," and unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
4. The (Christian) grace "of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of any good", yet man may resist the Holy Spirit; and
5. Believers are able to resist sin through grace, and Christ will keep them from falling, but whether they are beyond the possibility of ultimately forsaking God or "becoming devoid of grace", "must be more particularly determined."

Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the Baptists in the 16th century,[2] the Methodists in the 18th century and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

 

[Don]

SavedByMercy made the following comment in another thread:



Am I the only Calvinist who takes umbrage with this statement?

I would start by asking what type of Arminian SBM is describing. I have found that a great many Synergists do not consider themselves Arminian (although they are) and bristle at being labeled such. They would say that man does not cooperate with God in salvation, even though that is exactly what their soteriology advocates. They maintain a sort of theological cognitive dissonance.

A true Arminian (or better yet, a convinced Arminian) would take immense pride in saying that man cooperates with God in salvation. The true Arminian would probably hold to other doctrinal distinctives that would separate him from the modern Synergist we find today in broad evangelicalism, such as denying original sin and perseverance of the saints. However the modern day Arminian is actually a Synergist who enjoys a happy inconsistency within his synergistic belief system. To accuse them of being unbelievers is an incredible statement that displays hubris and ignorance.

Interesting. So modern arminians are really closet calvinists?

 

[Jerome]

He explained it here:

Pelagianism is a pure synergistic view. Man cooperates with God in salvation. Full blown Pelagianism is heresy. Thankfully most mainline Baptists are not Pelagians. They are semi-Pelagians. I do not question their salvation based simply on their misunderstanding. They are confused, but I am happy to call them "brethren".

 

[Reformed]

Interesting. So modern arminians are really closet calvinists?

That is not what I said or even meant to intimate.

Most contemporary Arminians (or what I call the "rank-and-file") in broad evangelicalism really do not have a definite opinion on the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Venues such as the Baptist Board attract those who are interested in the debate. But from what I have experienced in my multiple decades of being a Christian is that most church members go with what their local church or denomination believes.

True Synergism (I place Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism under the Synergist umbrella) teaches that man cooperates with God in salvation because God will not violate the free will of the creature. But ask your average non-Calvinist church-goer whether they even understand that concept and you will receive a big NO as your answer.

 

[Reformed]

But SBM, like all Calvinist, claims their beliefs come directly from God through "Divine Enablement".

That is a false statement. I do not believe my Calvinist convictions were derived by "Divine Enablement". They came through my study of the scriptures.

You will hear statements such as "God opened my eyes".

And that Christian colloquialism is unique to Calvinists?

 

[steaver]

That is a false statement. I do not believe my Calvinist convictions were derived by "Divine Enablement". They came through my study of the scriptures.

Well that's good to hear, but I do believe you are the only Calvinist here that has said such. I had a thread on this topic
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97186 and only one Calvinist disagreed with the OP, and even he then waffled a bit when challenged with his disagreement. No other Calvinist came forth to rebuke the claim of "Divine Enablement". In fact it was even more than that, the poster gave Matt 13 as proof as to why folks believe in Calvinism, which is a salvation passage.

 

[Reformed]

Well that's good to hear, but I do believe you are the only Calvinist here that has said such. I had a thread on this topic
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97186 and only one Calvinist disagreed with the OP, and even he then waffled a bit when challenged with his disagreement. No other Calvinist came forth to rebuke the claim of "Divine Enablement". In fact it was even more than that, the poster gave Matt 13 as proof as to why folks believe in Calvinism, which is a salvation passage.

Let me ask you a question. If you study something in the Bible, and change your current view because of it, would you say the Lord played a part in that change?

 

[OldRegular]

SavedByMercy made the following comment in another thread:



Am I the only Calvinist who takes umbrage with this statement?

I would start by asking what type of Arminian SBM is describing. I have found that a great many Synergists do not consider themselves Arminian (although they are) and bristle at being labeled such. They would say that man does not cooperate with God in salvation, even though that is exactly what their soteriology advocates. They maintain a sort of theological cognitive dissonance.

A true Arminian (or better yet, a convinced Arminian) would take immense pride in saying that man cooperates with God in salvation. The true Arminian would probably hold to other doctrinal distinctives that would separate him from the modern Synergist we find today in broad evangelicalism, such as denying original sin and perseverance of the saints. However the modern day Arminian is actually a Synergist who enjoys a happy inconsistency within his synergistic belief system. To accuse them of being unbelievers is an incredible statement that displays hubris and ignorance.

The best way to handle SBM is ignore him!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I was trying not to throw gasoline on the fire. So, my "seems" can very well be removed from the sentence.

Bro. Squire stated this in the newly closed thread...

This statement seems to question our salvation.

There's no 'seems' about it...:tear:

 

[OldRegular]

Same with me...

Same with me!

 

[steaver]

Let me ask you a question. If you study something in the Bible, and change your current view because of it, would you say the Lord played a part in that change?

Could be. I know I prayed earnestly for the Lord to show me TULIP in the bible if it be true because truth is ultimately what I seek, and thus far all I see is it's flaws in it's twist and turns.

Let me ask you a question. Is it possible you could be wrong about TULIP being correct?

 

[Reformed]

Could be.

Could be? Take off your anti-Calvinist hat for a moment. Suppose we are talking about another area of theology. If you studied that area, and you changed your current view, would you attribute that change to God? I do not think "could be" is a good answer. It seems like you are trying to straddle the fence without committing yourself.