You hold to limited atonement Reynolds? I didnt see that comin.
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where Is Free Will?
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I was a bit surprised by the comment as well.
I've done no such thing.
Like I pointed out before, He refuted the teachings of those in that institution long before ever going there and when he did go there out of their desperate need of after a plague in short order he came into conflict with the teacher there over his "Calvinist theology". It is quite a stretch to say Arminius ever went along with what became the TULIP teaching. The problem is that you try to ignore the conflict that existed before Synod of Dort... It is like saying Arminius was on that side before the sides were even clearly divided. Your reasoning seems a bit skewed here. But honestly I don't have a problem if you feel it necessary to make that claim, in fact I find rather warming that you want to take such measures to include Arminius in your doctrines.
What are you talking about??? He went to Leiden when his mother died. He started questioning predestination while a Calvinist due to t hy e "problem of evil".I've done no such thing.
Like I pointed out before, He refuted the teachings of those in that institution long before ever going there and when he did go there out of their desperate need of after a plague in short order he came into conflict with the teacher there over his "Calvinist theology". It is quite a stretch to say Arminius ever went along with what became the TULIP teaching. The problem is that you try to ignore the conflict that existed before Synod of Dort... It is like saying Arminius was on that side before the sides were even clearly divided. Your reasoning seems a bit skewed here. But honestly I don't have a problem if you feel it necessary to make that claim, in fact I find rather warming that you want to take such measures to include Arminius in your doctrines.
Regardless, Arminianism existed within Calvinism before outside of it (the first counsel allowed the belief).
I do not have a dog in either camp (I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian). But we cannot reinvent history. Was it an issue of debate while Arminius was alive? Yes. But even at Dort there was a bit of contention.
I do not think he said he holds to it.
While I have no problem calling myself a Calvinist, I like the terms Monergist and Synergist because they directly reflect the theology involved. I refer to myself as either a Calvinist or a Monergist. Take your pick. However, I do understand some people do not like any label that gives the impression it is following a man and all his beliefs.
Mat 7:23 KJV - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
right, I never knew you, but God knows all, Thus God saying He did not have a personal relationship with you, This also reinforces foreknew, He did have a personal relationship before being conformed to be a human, as Jesus was.
Or ..... preexistence of the spiritual part of us the soul
There is your first error
There is also the "guilt by association" thing.
Some of the most hateful people I have had the displeasure of knowing have been young Calvinists. (Some of the most godly have been old Calvinists). My point is that people get a mindset not only of their own experience but of what they read.
Given the nature of the past debate within the SBC I can understand why some would shy away from the label "Calvinist" even if it fit. Same with "Arminianism" (although, to be fair, it typically does not fit non-Calvinists in the SBC...they are more "in between").
It's all about definitions. I believe Jesus death only atoned for the sins of the elect. Had the aatonement been universal, no one would go to Hell. As for who the "elect" are, I believe that was seen through His foreknowledge.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
And where do we see foreknowledge in that sense in Scripture?
I honestly don't know what a cage Calvinist is. A lot of young men while in or right out of Seminary love to debate about and attempt to advance Calvinism. (Nothing wrong with that.) After a few years, they realize it's really not very important and then move on to other, more practical things.
Is God Omniscient, or do we need to debate that? Can we concede His omniscience?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Cage-Stage Calvinism: What Is It and What Causes It?
That being said, Salvation, which is ultimately what we are dealing with here, is probably the most important doctrine to have correct.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
That was never the question.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Also remember, this is the Calvinist vs. Arminium forum so.... It's also easily the most active forum on this board so that is why you see me posting here a lot. On my website I don't deal with TULIP nearly as much as I do here.
Most Calvinists, traditionalists, and Arminians can all agree on evangelism and what the Gospel is. Do you present the Gospel any differently than a non Calvinist?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No. But that isn't the point. I think the doctrine of salvation and what you believe about it determines your view of who God is.
- Status