What Dr. James P. Boyce thought about Arminians

[Pastor Larry]

Ray,

We say that He predestinates all of the saved based on their trust in Jesus.

But you have yet to produce one verse of Scripture where God says this. There is a vast difference between what you say and what God says. I have repeatedly asked you for a verse to back up this assertion that predestination is the result of belief. Prove your point from Scripture, not from your own mind.

 

[Ray Berrian]

SmokeEater,

It is interesting just how much we are held and governed by the Lord's Providence; at least this has been my experience.

Did you take notice of Phillip's experience of being 'caught away' to another location and its relatiionship, by word picture, as to Christ coming for His saints?

Ray Berrian

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

Norman Geisler's book, "Chosen But Free" (Bethany House Publishers) is very good. I am on page 136 and twice he claims to be a moderate Calvinist. The last time he said it in my reading was on page 99 at the top. He knocks down Calvinism and Arminianism.

On page 150 he shows how the Apostolate and the great early fathers virtually all believed in the free will of human beings.

As sample: Justin Martyr 100-165 A.D. 'God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness . . . . So if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.' {Dialogue, CXLI}.

Jerome 347-420 A.D. 'It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant that I condemn free will. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created, endowed with free will; still it is not this which distinguishes us from the brutes. For human free will, as I said, depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. . . . . It is true that freedom of the will brings with it freedom of decision.'

Early on Augustine believed in free will but later adjusted and believe in something other than this. John Calvin, Martin Luther and others were the first ones to perpetuate the autocratic God of extreme Calvinism. From these two and other Roman Catholic priests some have in our day believed the views of Romanism at the time of the Reformation. I believe the Catholic Church has modified some of their extreme views of their church which has moved closer to Arminianism.

Coming from me you might not be inclined to believe it. Norman Geisler, being a moderate Calvinist, has written these ideas in his book. I like his book very much and it has been enlightening to me.

 

[Ray Berrian]

It is interesting to me that Calvinists like Mr. Camping and others say that any view other than theirs comes and is worked up in the minds of men. They infer that their views come straight from the mind and heart of Almighty God. Actually, their ideas also come through the mind and heart of human beings. Apparently, brother Camping is human too because several Presbyterians are in disagreement with his view of the ending of the ministry of Christian churches. Here we can join with the Presbyterians because we too believe that the ministry of the church has not ended until the time of the rapture of the saints.

Respectfully,

Ray Berrian

 

[Felix]

Dear Ray,

You may also want to check out James R. White's 'The Potter's Freedom' which is a rebuttal of Norman Geisler's 'Chosen but Free'. (Let's hear the other side....don't you think?)

Felix

 

[Pastor Larry]

Geisler's book is a joke in terms of academics and argumentation. He is a moderate Calvinist in the same sense that Al Gore is a moderate conservative.

On page 150 he shows how the Apostolate and the great early fathers virtually all believed in the free will of human beings.

All believers (including us Calvinists) have always believed in the free will of human beings, the quotes notwithstanding. The difference is that we believe you define free will in a manner that is inconsistent with the biblical teaching on depravity. We believe that free will is to be defined in consistent terms (so that it applies both to God and man) and in terms of biblical revelation, meaning that man's will has been affected by sin.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

It is certainly not wise to appeal to history in order to determine truth. John wrote in his first epistle, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." [I John 4:1] There have been false prophets since the early days of the church. Because something was recorded during the first few centuries, does not mean it is the truth.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Primitive Baptist,

I agree with you but the church confirms to us as to what was being said by the saints just after the Apostles passing into Heaven.

No one that I know would doubt the faith and credibility of men like: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and later in time, men like Jerome, John Chrysostom, the early views of Augustine, St. Anselm, and Thomas Acquinas.

All of these leaders in the church defy your Calvinistic view of the bondage of the will. The bondage of the will concept was a spin off of the Reformation view of sinful man and not the pure teaching of the Apostolate, as some think.

Tertullian said, 'I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. . . . Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will . . . (Against Marcion, 2.5).

Nothing was said like sinful man is so dead that he cannot respond in faith to the claims of Christ. Neither did they say, "God regenerates the sinner and in turn that person places his or her faith in Christ thereby obtaining everlasting life."

 

[Ray Berrian]

PastorLarry,

I agree with your evaluation of Dr. Geisler. Why he thinks he is a moderate Calvinist, I don't understand. What he has written, so far, agrees with my theology and I am strongly a four point Arminian by way of Biblical understanding. I do understand and believe in the eternal security of the person who has been truly born again. Again, I could not see that he was a moderate Calvinist. It is interesting that we both noticed the same thing about this theological writer.

 

[Ray Berrian]

fpardi,

Thanks for the information about the opposing view. I will look into it.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

All of these leaders in the church defy your Calvinistic view of the bondage of the will. The bondage of the will concept was a spin off of the Reformation view of sinful man and not the pure teaching of the Apostolate, as some think

Whether the early church leaders agree with the bondage of the will or not, the Bible clearly teaches it.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

I might be wrong, but I think if you were unfair in not recognizing the academic credentials of Norman Geisler and not just writers offering up your views. Dr. Geisler is author or coauthor of over twenty books, including "Introduction to Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, Miracles and Modern Thought, The Roots of Evil and Christian Apologetics." He earned a B.A. and M.A. from Wheaton College, a Th.B. from William Tyndale College and a Ph.D. (in philosophy) from Loyola University. He has served as chairman of the Philosophy of Religion Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and now is professor of theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, at the time of co-authoring the book, "Predestination & Freewill."

Having written, "Christian Apologetics" I also doubt that he has not made an excellent defense of the Christian faith.

In his book, Chosen But Free he points out the extreme views of both Arminianism and Calvinism. The new thing that I learned from him was about the Neotheists.

Respectfully,

Ray

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I might be wrong, but I think if you were unfair in not recognizing the academic credentials of Norman Geisler and not just writers offering up your views.

I was not questioning his academic credentials. I was commenting on his writing in this particular book, which by all reports, is very poorly done in terms of academics and argumentation. I realize he has written a lot of books; so has Karl Barth. That does not mean that he is right or orthodox. In "Christian Apologetics," Geisler defends a rational, or semi-rational apolegetic which is consistent with his soteriology but weak in terms of the nature of man. Credentials and curricula vitae mean nothing unless a person is adequately dealing with arguments and facts. The fact that Geisler calls himself a moderate calvinist is all we need to know about this issue of credibility. It went right out the window when he called himself that.

 

[By God's Grace]

I started this thread to see more discussion about how the SBC of today is not the SBC it originally was. With the annual convention this week, I was just wondering what Dr. Boyce would say if he was there this week.

I suspect he would be grieved at the low rating we give God today and the way we have cheapen God's grace and ignored giving Him glory.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />All of these leaders in the church defy your Calvinistic view of the bondage of the will. The bondage of the will concept was a spin off of the Reformation view of sinful man and not the pure teaching of the Apostolate, as some think

Whether the early church leaders agree with the bondage of the will or not, the Bible clearly teaches it.</font>[/QUOTE]They surely didn't think so, and they knew the BIblical language better than we did. I think that coming from the SCriptures first as they did painted a better picture than those from either side today, due to their already made assumptions. "Bondage of the will" never appears in Scripture by the way, so you can can't honestly say it is "clearly taught."

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
"Bondage of the will" never appears in Scripture by the way, so you can can't honestly say it is "clearly taught."

True, the words "bondage of the will" are not in the Scriptures, but the concept is clearly taught.

(John 6:44 NKJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by By God's Grace:
I started this thread to see more discussion about how the SBC of today is not the SBC it originally was. With the annual convention this week, I was just wondering what Dr. Boyce would say if he was there this week.

I suspect he would be grieved at the low rating we give God today and the way we have cheapen God's grace and ignored giving Him glory.

I think that Boyce and most of the other founders of the SBC would attempt to clean house theologically and, if not possible, start a new denomination.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

[ June 10, 2002, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
"Bondage of the will" never appears in Scripture by the way, so you can can't honestly say it is "clearly taught."

True, the words "bondage of the will" are not in the Scriptures, but the concept is clearly taught.

(John 6:44 NKJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]And since he draws all men, this actually shows that the will is NOT in bondage. It's just saying that people can't just "come" to God - God has to come to all men first. They are to then choose.

 

[By God's Grace]

Scott:

Let's chase that rabbit.

You are saying that no one can come to God unless God first calls (draws) him.

The Scriptures clearly teach this. That no one can see unless God first opens their eyes....no one can hear unless God first opens their heart.

So once God has opened their ears, eyes and heart.... are you saying if they reject God he closes all the above again???? Where does Scripture teach this?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It's just saying that people can't just "come" to God - God has to come to all men first. They are to then choose.

Interesting. Please supply the verse(s) where the Bible says that God comes to all men.

Thanks.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken