Why Do Arminians Keep Saying Such Things?

[Rippon]

FTR, the indivdual who first brought up "blasphemy" in this thread is Rippon.

Yes, I did. Because that's what many non-Cals engage in with reference to the OP.

However, my question is - "Why do differing POVs even get labeled in such a manner?"

When they are blasphemous!

 

[JDale]

.

That's a deliberate lie.

No, Rip, that was not "a deliberate lie," it was just a truth you were not willing to hear. But you won't accept that because you don't believe in "free will." So, it must have been predestined that I say that to you, and that you would reject it.... Wow! You Calvinists can explain ANYTHING!


JDale

 

[saturneptune]

I'm an advocate of believers baptism. However, there are many others who advocate I.B. who you could learn from in many other areas of theology.

Your posts are an embarrasment to doctrines of sovereignty and grace. No one is this thread has accused you of blasphemy. Your mindset is the exact reason Christian brothers on the other side of this question hate Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

No, Rip, that was not "a deliberate lie," it was just a truth you were not willing to hear.

You had said that I despise Arminians. I told you that was a deliberate lie.

If you want to engage in more lies then go elsewhere. I have never, ever said such a thing. You have the nerve to say whatever pops into your wee little brain. Why haven't you tried to research any threads I have had about Armians in the past? Did you know I have had threads about Arminians that I respect? No, you're too busy lying about me. Deal with what I say not with conjured-up fantasies.

Believers are composed of Arminians and Calvinists. I have said so repeatedly. But you have the sick need to spout-off and make up things. You're shameful.

 

[Rippon]

Your posts are an embarrasment to doctrines of sovereignty and grace. No one is this thread has accused you of blasphemy. Your mindset is the exact reason Christian brothers on the other side of this question hate Calvinism.

You have a big disconnect here. The above is in response to what I said:"I'm an advocate of believers' baptism. However, there are many others who advocate I.B. who you could learn from in many other ares of theology."

How in the world does that statement of mine have anything to do with your hateful post? What kind of thought processes do you possess to say the wicked things you do?

 

[saturneptune]

You have a big disconnect here. The above is in response to what I said:"I'm an advocate of believers' baptism. However, there are many others who advocate I.B. who you could learn from in many other ares of theology."

How in the world does that statement of mine have anything to do with your hateful post? What kind of thought processes do you possess to say the wicked things you do?

I don't believe that a word was said about your belief in Baptism, it was your hero, John Calvin for which the comment was made. The process that I possess is the observation that your posts accuse numerous posters of blasphemy without just cause. Sorry, bud, that is not wicked. It is a truth as clear as black and white with no shades of gray. [insult deleted]

 

[Rippon]

I don't believe that a word was said about your belief in Baptism,...

I said I was a believer in believers' baptism.

it was your hero, John Calvin for which the comment was made.

Your post numbered 63 had no mention of John Calvin. Further, I did not mention him. You're fighting phantoms. Stop bringing up the man from Geneva with your despicable tirades about him. You are proving how juvenile you are.

The best thing that you could do is find the nearest hole in a wall, crawl into it, and let others take up the debate on sovereignty and grace.

I will let your own words here ring in your ears.

 

[Rippon]

You're right. There is no appreciable difference between Arminianism and Pelagianism.

The last word should have been Semi-Pelagianism; not Pelagianism. I just caught this now. But the rest of my post (numbered 55)clarified my perspective.

 

[webdog]

The last word should have been Semi-Pelagianism; not Pelagianism. I just caught this now. But the rest of my post (numbered 55)clarified my perspective.

Makes no difference...learn what each is before making false accusations.

 

[Lux et veritas]

Makes no difference...learn what each is before making false accusations.

Having studied them myself for many years, and teaching on the subject, I can see nothing wrong with Rippon's statements on the marked similarities between semi-pelagianism and Arminianism. Any differences are so small as to be inconsequential.

 

[Allan]

Having studied them myself for many years, and teaching on the subject, I can see nothing wrong with Rippon's statements on the marked similarities between semi-pelagianism and Arminianism. Any differences are so small as to be inconsequential.

Then I would suggest you study much more.

The two are completely opposed to each other.
Semi-Pel - man of himself can seek after and comes to God apart from any influence or grace of God but in doing so realizes that he can not make it. God then 'rewards' man with grace so as to be saved. This is only similar to the Pelaganism view which says man comes to God completely apart from God's influence and grace.

Arminians - no man care for God, will seek after God, nor can come to an understanding of or by Himself. God therefore must be the initiator, revealer, and the one who draws man to Himself otherwise man will stay where he began - in sin.

If you think the two positions of Arminianism and Semi-pel are even close you are either sorely deceived by misinformation about the two position because you never actually studied it out for yourself; or you willfully are/trying to deceive others through lies and misinformation. I am being on the former of the two and hope you take more time to study it out more.

 

[saturneptune]

Having studied them myself for many years, and teaching on the subject, I can see nothing wrong with Rippon's statements on the marked similarities between semi-pelagianism and Arminianism. Any differences are so small as to be inconsequential.

How about commenting on his definition of blasphemy, that is, "you do not agree with my opinion about the Bible?"

 

[Lux et veritas]

How about commenting on his definition of blasphemy, that is, "you do not agree with my opinion about the Bible?"

I can't answer for another man, but if I read his statement about blasphemy, it was specifically in regards to those who say, that God chooses willy-nilly who is saved or not.

Now, whether a man believes in unconditional election or not, it would be a very serious thing to accuse God of such actions. Calvinists do not say that. They claim the basis of God's election is to be found within Himself, that is, according to the good pleasure of His will. Even Calvin did not attempt to state what that was! Just that it was so because that is what the Word says.

Reading the posts on this subject in this forum has made one thing clear to me. The majority who are posting don't understand their "own side" very fully, let alone their opponents!

I used to be a strong anti-calvinist, and even taught against it. Until the Lord moved me one day to set aside all my preconceptions (from dispensational and Arminian/semi-pelagian viewpoints), and just read the Scriptures. I came out of that 1 year process a fully-convinced person of the validity and scripturalness of Reformed Theology, and have taught apologetics classes in my pastorate for many years now.

 

[Lux et veritas]

Then I would suggest you study much more.

The two are completely opposed to each other.
Semi-Pel - man of himself can seek after and comes to God apart from any influence or grace of God but in doing so realizes that he can not make it. God then 'rewards' man with grace so as to be saved. This is only similar to the Pelaganism view which says man comes to God completely apart from God's influence and grace.

Arminians - no man care for God, will seek after God, nor can come to an understanding of or by Himself. God therefore must be the initiator, revealer, and the one who draws man to Himself otherwise man will stay where he began - in sin.

If you think the two positions of Arminianism and Semi-pel are even close you are either sorely deceived by misinformation about the two position because you never actually studied it out for yourself; or you willfully are/trying to deceive others through lies and misinformation. I am being on the former of the two and hope you take more time to study it out more.

I not only studied it, but taught from an Arminian /semi-pelagian viewpoint. Outright pelagianism is quite different than Arminianism, but we're talking about semi-pelagianism.

I suggest you READ and STUDY. It would save you a lot of embarrassment of manifesting ignorance on the matter at hand.

 

[saturneptune]

I can't answer for another man, but if I read his statement about blasphemy, it was specifically in regards to those who say, that God chooses willy-nilly who is saved or not.

Now, whether a man believes in unconditional election or not, it would be a very serious thing to accuse God of such actions. Calvinists do not say that. They claim the basis of God's election is to be found within Himself, that is, according to the good pleasure of His will. Even Calvin did not attempt to state what that was! Just that it was so because that is what the Word says.

Reading the posts on this subject in this forum has made one thing clear to me. The majority who are posting don't understand their "own side" very fully, let alone their opponents!

I used to be a strong anti-calvinist, and even taught against it. Until the Lord moved me one day to set aside all my preconceptions (from dispensational and Arminian/semi-pelagian viewpoints), and just read the Scriptures. I came out of that 1 year process a fully-convinced person of the validity and scripturalness of Reformed Theology, and have taught apologetics classes in my pastorate for many years now.

I may not have been clear in the point I was trying to make. Besides not liking the name Calvinism, I agree with your last paragraph completely, and it is almost like a pattern in my life, just that I am not a pastor. The point is that the using the name blasphemy or heretic or other such terms in a reckless manner without just cause is very offensive to the people this individual is debating. It is this exact mindset that always causes this discussion to degenerate to this thread. He does no favors to the doctrines of grace and sovereignty.

 

[Lux et veritas]

I may not have been clear in the point I was trying to make. Besides not liking the name Calvinism, I agree with your last paragraph completely, and it is almost like a pattern in my life, just that I am not a pastor. The point is that the using the name blasphemy or heretic or other such terms in a reckless manner without just cause is very offensive to the people this individual is debating. It is this exact mindset that always causes this discussion to degenerate to this thread. He does no favors to the doctrines of grace and sovereignty.

Then you and I probably agree on this issue. I think the word should be used very carefully.

 

[Rippon]

Makes no difference...learn what each is before making false accusations.

No false accusations. When it comes to that department you are the man!

R-E-A-D my post numbered 55. You love to recklessly throw your little grenades. I had reread my post and corrected an oversight. Maybe you should do the same on occasion.

As I had said in that post of mine:"A and S-P are not identical in all respects -- but the similarities are prounounced. Both are synergistic."

 

[Allan]

I not only studied it, but taught from an Arminian /semi-pelagian viewpoint. Outright pelagianism is quite different than Arminianism, but we're talking about semi-pelagianism.

I suggest you READ and STUDY. It would save you a lot of embarrassment of manifesting ignorance on the matter at hand.

True, study does keep one from such things but I, not you, have shown why your opinion is completely without any merit or truth.

Since you post is deviod of such it is apparent that you can't disagree with what I posted but instead through out you seemingly usual ad-homs because due to an apparent lack of substance.

In case you don't understand the term - semi-pelagainism refers back to it's root origin and thus it core position. Man can and will seek after and come to God initially and completely apart from any influence and grace of God. The distinction between Pelegainism and Semi-Pel in this is that in the 'semi-pel' view, God 'rewards' man for his efforts with grace so as to save him.

If you place Arminianism in that catagory it is you are completely ignorant of any real study on the matter. THus far you give nothing to substantiate your opinion of what semi-pel holds to at it's core foundation.

 

[Rippon]

How about commenting on his definition of blasphemy, that is, "you do not agree with my opinion about the Bible?"

Will your stupidity never end? Man you just dig a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

My definition of the word blasphemy is when someone disagrees with my opinion about the Bible.?! That is patently false and you know it. If you'd ever interact with what I have actually said instead of your tabloid-style remarks folks would be very appreciative.

I have asked you before -- please read my OP carefully. I know it's asking you too much to be honest. But give it an ole- fashioned college try.

Folks can disagree with my understanding of election for instance, but I have never so much as hinted that because they differ with my view that they are blasphemous. To come up with your charges is showing no regard for truth-telling.

 

[saturneptune]

Will your stupidity never end? Man you just dig a deeper hole for yourself every time you post.

My definition of the word blasphemy is when someone disagrees with my opinion about the Bible.?! That is patently false and you know it. If you'd ever interact with what I have actually said instead of your tabloid-style remarks folks would be very appreciative.

I have asked you before -- please read my OP carefully. I know it's asking you too much to be honest. But give it an ole- fashioned college try.

Folks can disagree with my understanding of election for instance, but I have never so much as hinted that because they differ with my view that they are blasphemous. To come up with your charges is showing no regard for truth-telling.

I stand by every post. Your reckless use of the word blasphemy is an outrage.