Why Do Arminians Keep Saying Such Things?

[Rippon]

Many non-Cals (Arminians/Semi-Pelagians) here keep making the same old charges. "If the Calvinistic view of election is true, then the Lord is just indiscriminately picking people willy-nilly. God is just being random -- He's being arbitrary."

Please, reconsider your blasphemous representations. Calvinists believe that the Lord is a God of order. He doesn't do anything capriciously. Everything that He does is righteous. His ways are always straight. However, His ways are beyond our ways and thoughts. Please don't charge our view of God as being haphazard in His dealings with the eternal destinies of people.

We get the fact that you do not like our understanding from the Word of God of the doctrine of election. Yet you don't have to resort to such blatant sacrilegious comments knowing full-well that we have no such conception of God or that our understanding of biblical election could ever imply such a monstrous thing as a God who rules in a will-o'-the-wisp fashion.

Mortals can be guilty of being arbitrary -- why would you even dare to say that Calvinists think that God is running around the universe playing fast-and-loose with eternal destinies?

Can't you disagree with what you think we believe without stooping to the level many of you have lowered yourselves to?

By saying such things you have more and more confirmed that you are the objectors who Paul dealt with in Romans chapter nine.

 

[Dale-c]

By saying such things you have more and more confirmed that you are the objectors who Paul dealt with in Romans chapter nine.

This line says it all right here Rippon.

 

[Darrenss1]

Many non-Cals (Arminians/Semi-Pelagians) here keep making the same old charges. "If the Calvinistic view of election is true, then the Lord is just indiscriminately picking people willy-nilly. God is just being random -- He's being arbitrary."

Please, reconsider your blasphemous representations. Calvinists believe that the Lord is a God of order. He doesn't do anything capriciously. Everything that He does is righteous. His ways are always straight. However, His ways are beyond our ways and thoughts. Please don't charge our view of God as being haphazard in His dealings with the eternal destinies of people.

It is not blasphemous at all. Looking at the explanation Cavinist give of God "passing over", it seems the answer is lacking somewhat. Saying God's ways are mysterious and beyond our understanding, true; however that is not a reason to help yourself to a license of interpretation saying all whom disagree don't understand God's ways are unsearchable - and same applies for you too.

Since God can name one by one whom HE elects for eternal life, then God also knows by name those whom HE does not elect, or at least God knows every individual person and has a purpose for every individual person. Therefore why did God choose one over the other? And that begs the question, is it really "passing over" knowing the inexhaustable knowledge of God and HIS love and grace to ALL mankind?

We get the fact that you do not like our understanding from the Word of God of the doctrine of election. Yet you don't have to resort to such blatant sacrilegious comments knowing full-well that we have no such conception of God or that our understanding of biblical election could ever imply such a monstrous thing as a God who rules in a will-o'-the-wisp fashion.

Yet the question how does God choose remains unanswered. There is nothing in scripture to claim God passes over any man and I would think Calvnists would be the first to say God always has a plan and purpose, even down to the precise individual.

Mortals can be guilty of being arbitrary -- why would you even dare to say that Calvinists think that God is running around the universe playing fast-and-loose with eternal destinies?

Ok, that's a fair comment. Does a non elect non believer have an eternal destiny other than the lake of fire? Ok, lets say God does NOT owe grace to any of them, fine. BUT does God love them, does God have any compassion on the same multitude that HE passes over? While its ok to take eternal life election from Roms 9, the fact then remains God raised up Pharaoh and vessels fitted for destruction, for wrath, pots of dishonor; if God's purposes for Pharaoh is to be interpretated as eternal life/damnation purposes, than GOD predestined Pharaoh, Pharaoh was NOT passed over.

By saying such things you have more and more confirmed that you are the objectors who Paul dealt with in Romans chapter nine.

And the same may be true of Calvinists as well. Calvinist ought to see that these objections are very valid, disgarding them and calling it blaphemy is simply unreasonable.

Darren

 

[Dale-c]

Calvinist ought to see that these objections are very valid, disgarding them and calling it blaphemy is simply unreasonable.

Darren

I can't believe I just read this! You are saying that the objections Paul brings up and then refutes are valid objections?

I have seen many people tap dance around these verse but never anyone actually claim they were valid objections!

 

[Dale-c]

16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who (AG)runs, but on (AH)God who has mercy.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "(AI)FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He (AJ)hardens whom He desires.

19(AK)You will say to me then, "(AL)Why does He still find fault? For (AM)who resists His will?"

20On the contrary, who are you, (AN)O man, who (AO)answers back to God? (AP)The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much (AQ)patience vessels of wrath (AR)prepared for destruction?

23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He (AU)prepared beforehand for glory,

24even us, whom He also (AV)called, (AW)not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Darren, do you believe those were valid objections?

 

[Darrenss1]

Darren, do you believe those were valid objections?

Absolutely. I don't interpret Rom 9 as eternal life/damnation election. You are simply trying to burrow Calvinism into the text. I'm sure any Calvinist would like to believe that Paul was a Calvinist. :smilewinkgrin:

Darren

 

[Dale-c]

Absolutely.

Darren, Paul refutes those arguments he brings up so how can you say those are valid arguments?
They are NOT valid or Paul would not refute them.

You are on the wrong side of this passage if you agree with Paul's objectors.

Darren, even if this is not talking about salvation (and it is) that still does not excuse you for agreeing with those that object to Paul's teaching in this chapter.

What ever Paul is talking about, you had better agree with him.

 

[Darrenss1]

Darren, Paul refutes those arguments he brings up so how can you say those are valid arguments?
They are NOT valid or Paul would not refute them.

You are on the wrong side of this passage if you agree with Paul's objectors.

Darren, even if this is not talking about salvation (and it is) that still does not excuse you for agreeing with those that object to Paul's teaching in this chapter.

What ever Paul is talking about, you had better agree with him.

I don't read Calvinism in the text at all. God is calling the Gentiles for salvation, all whom respond are those same that God foreknew and elected. There is nothing in the text to suggest Paul was arguing for Calvinism. Not only that, you even take a step further and assume what Paul's objectors were objecting to.. I agree with everything Paul teaches, its the truths of the Word of God.

Darren

 

[JDale]

Many non-Cals (Arminians/Semi-Pelagians) here keep making the same old charges. "If the Calvinistic view of election is true, then the Lord is just indiscriminately picking people willy-nilly. God is just being random -- He's being arbitrary."

Please, reconsider your blasphemous representations. Calvinists believe that the Lord is a God of order. He doesn't do anything capriciously. Everything that He does is righteous. His ways are always straight. However, His ways are beyond our ways and thoughts. Please don't charge our view of God as being haphazard in His dealings with the eternal destinies of people.

We get the fact that you do not like our understanding from the Word of God of the doctrine of election. Yet you don't have to resort to such blatant sacrilegious comments knowing full-well that we have no such conception of God or that our understanding of biblical election could ever imply such a monstrous thing as a God who rules in a will-o'-the-wisp fashion.

Mortals can be guilty of being arbitrary -- why would you even dare to say that Calvinists think that God is running around the universe playing fast-and-loose with eternal destinies?

Can't you disagree with what you think we believe without stooping to the level many of you have lowered yourselves to?

By saying such things you have more and more confirmed that you are the objectors who Paul dealt with in Romans chapter nine.

Rip (very appropriate monicker, by the way):

First, you seem to equate Arminians and Semi-Pelagians, which is demonstrably ridiculous (no need to rehash this as you've been dressed down about it before).

Second, you refer to objections to Calvinism's "doctrine of election" as "blasphemous," and "sacreligious" ("blatant" even!) -- another rather strong charge because "non-Calvinists" simply disagree with your views.

Third, I wonder if you feel the same sense of urgency and alarm at the Calvinist mischaracterization of Arminians view of God as "weak" or "a failure" because Christ dies for all men but "can't" save all men?

Rip, there is no "stooping" here. There is a serious question as to God's sovereignty -- which I assume you respect, though I'm not sure you'd extend the same kind of understanding to me, a mere "Arminian/Semi-Pelagian" in your words.

We simply have a different view of God. Calvinism insists that God must "decree" everything in order to be sovereign over anything. Everything is determined, predestined, and God has it ALL under His control. Arminianism sees God as sovereign over ALL things, knowing ALL things past, present and future in their actualities, as well as all their many potentialities. YET, He leaves ALL humans "free," knowing completely and exhaustively ALL things, without compromising His omniscience. In fact, that ENHANCES His "perfect knowledge," from a finite human perspective.

I don't think either view is "blasphemous" Rip. I just think the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty is too small.

Blessings,

JDale

PS - exactly which "objectors" were you referring to in Romans 9 Rip?

 

[Dale-c]

Darren, I think you need to go back and read this post a little clearer. You clearly state that you believed that the objections raised in Romans 9 were valid objections.


Now I wondered if you did not misunderstand what Rippon and I were asking, and it seems you did misunderstand. But the fact is, that is what you said.

 

[DHK]

What ever Paul is talking about, you had better agree with him.

And on that, we all agree.

 

[kyredneck]

This line says it all right here Rippon.

.....zactly......

 

[Dale-c]

And on that, we all agree.

Which is why I had to think that Darren was not understanding what I was asking. I thought surely he did not believe those who disagreed with Paul were right.

 

[Darrenss1]

Which is why I had to think that Darren was not understanding what I was asking. I thought surely he did not believe those who disagreed with Paul were right.

And is that based upon your view that Paul's objector's were raising a non Calvinistic objection? To agree with your premise I would have to be a Calvinist. Than you might as well say that Calvinism is scripture and scripture is Calvinism. You should know better than that. :thumbs:

Darren

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hey Darren,

I think you are missing the point. There is an objector in Romans 9 that is rebuked by Paul. Forget the issue of Calvinism for the moment. Whatever it is that is taught by Paul in Romans 9, is it your position that the objector is correct?

Brian

 

[Darrenss1]

Whatever it is that is taught by Paul in Romans 9, is it your position that the objector is correct?

And you think I missed THAT point?? Seriously....

Darren

 

[webdog]

What is the purpose of this thread? If the author of the OP has an issue with an individual, why the need to start an entire thread on it?

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Darren,

And you think I missed THAT point?? Seriously....

Yes, I thought you did. Please bear with me for a moment. In post number 5, Dale-c quoted Romans 9:16-24. In this passage Paul is dealing with a hypothetical objector. Paul's response to this man is a rebuke. Dale-c asks you if the objector in this passage was bringing up valid objections. Your response to Dale-c was an unequivocal...

Absolutely.

Dale-c goes on to make the point that since Paul refutes (more accurately rebukes) the objector, the objector's objections should not be considered valid. You replied...

I agree with everything Paul teaches, its the truths of the Word of God.

Fair enough. But to me, there seems to be a disconnect in your two answers. So, can you see why someone might be confused by your answers?

Brian

 

[Darrenss1]

Darren, do you believe those were valid objections?

To clear this up, I took what you asked as my own objections being valid. Please be clearer in your dialogue and misunderstandings would not happen.

That answers what Brian asked. Thanks.

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

What is the purpose of this thread? If the author of the OP has an issue with an individual, why the need to start an entire thread on it?

I believe he was addressing me in his OP anyway. I can't see how passing over really is a valid explanation for the Calvinist position of non election. All I asked is for an explanation or a comment, and the response being, what I asked was akin to blasphemy.

Darren