Why Does "Arminian Theology" get A bad name here On BB?

[JesusFan]

Since it is closer to cal theology then some might suspect, as they differ on extent of the atonement, and if Grace can be resisited by Man, and they are "not sure" if one can lose salvation, NOT definite yes to that!

Wouldn't free will be about same as Arminian, so why so much distain for that term?

 

[mandym]

Since it is closer to cal theology then some might suspect, as they differ on extent of the atonement, and if Grace can be resisited by Man, and they are "not sure" if one can lose salvation, NOT definite yes to that!

Wouldn't free will be about same as Arminian, so why so much distain for that term?

So who is it that is not sure if they can lose their salvation? And the disdain is a result of the label being completely incorrect. Reformed folsk tend to believe anyone not one of them is arminian. Save your labels for yourselves. Everyone does not fit into a nice neat little label. Talk about anti-intellectual.

 

[preachinjesus]

Probably because it hasn't been properly articulated and is woefully, and willfully, misunderstood.

 

[JesusFan]

So who is it that is not sure if they can lose their salvation? And the disdain is a result of the label being completely incorrect. Reformed folsk tend to believe anyone not one of them is arminian. Save your labels for yourselves. Everyone does not fit into a nice neat little label. Talk about anti-intellectual.

again, IF one is just discusiing what arminians believe, why is it such a bad thing?

 

[Skandelon]

I think the repulsion of labels connected to historical figures has more to do with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and the fact that no one systematic theology completely represents someone else's perspective.

 

[InTheLight]

The posters that most frequently use the term Arminianism are the Calvinists. I rarely read a non-Cal use the phrase.

Also, I was not aware that the term was disdained.

 

[JesusFan]

The posters that most frequently use the term Arminianism are the Calvinists. I rarely read a non-Cal use the phrase.

Also, I was not aware that the term was disdained.

Most, if not all, Non cals do not see themselves as being as such!

 

[JesusFan]

I think the repulsion of labels connected to historical figures has more to do with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and the fact that no one systematic theology completely represents someone else's perspective.

think another reason is that some fail to realise that Arms do hold to effectual grace being applied towards us by God in addition to the Gospel itself!

 

[Skandelon]

think another reason is that some fail to realise that Arms do hold to effectual grace being applied towards us by God in addition to the Gospel itself!

Huh? Are you saying Arminians affirm the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible/effectual grace?

 

[JesusFan]

Huh? Are you saying Arminians affirm the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible/effectual grace?

Arms affirm the effectual aspect, int he sense that ALL have to have God applied effectual grace towards them as being sinners cannot come to Christ on their own, but unlike Cals, still can and do resist the call to be saved!

 

[Amy.G]

Arms affirm the effectual aspect, int he sense that ALL have to have God applied effectual grace towards them as being sinners cannot come to Christ on their own, but unlike Cals, still can and do resist the call to be saved!

I just cannot understand why Cal's believe in "irresistible" grace when the bible so clearly states that grace can be resisted.

Acts 7:51
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

 

[JesusFan]

I just cannot understand why Cal's believe in "irresistible" grace when the bible so clearly states that grace can be resisted.

Acts 7:51
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

Because they were unregerated by god, were dead in their sins, refused to hear the message, as it goes against their "natural viewpoints!"

 

[Don]

JesusFan, where are you getting your information on arminians? I would love to read your source material.

 

[JesusFan]

JesusFan, where are you getting your information on arminians? I would love to read your source material.

from Wikipedia, online encyclopedia:
The five points of the Remonstrance asserted that:

"election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was efficacious only for the man of faith;
unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
grace is not irresistible; and
believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. "

Please search that out, but believe that they got is right this time as a source!

 

[Amy.G]

Because they were unregerated by god, were dead in their sins, refused to hear the message, as it goes against their "natural viewpoints!"

The bible does not say that. If you can find even one verse that says that the Jews didn't believe because they were "unregenerated" please post it.

 

[Don]

from Wikipedia, online encyclopedia:
The five points of the Remonstrance asserted that:

"election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was efficacious only for the man of faith;
unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
grace is not irresistible; and
believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. "

Please search that out, but believe that they got is right this time as a source!

Is this the link you're pulling from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

There's also a decent Wikipedia article on the Synod of Dort (1619); you might consider reading that.

I suggest you take a look at ccel.org, and do a search for Arminius' "Public Disputations" and "Declaration of Sentiments."

 

[jbh28]

I just cannot understand why Cal's believe in "irresistible" grace when the bible so clearly states that grace can be resisted.

Acts 7:51
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

Calvinist don't teach that grace is ALWAYS irresistible. It's only irresistible to the elect and only at the time of salvation. Even the elect reject God up to a point. The non-elect will always reject God.

 

[Amy.G]

Calvinist don't teach that grace is ALWAYS irresistible. It's only irresistible to the elect and only at the time of salvation. Even the elect reject God up to a point. The non-elect will always reject God.

Then they should take the I out of TUL P :tongue3:


They are non-elect because they reject God. They do not reject God because they are non-elect.

 

[mandym]

They are non-elect because they reject God. They do not reject God because they are non-elect.

Very well put

 

[jbh28]

Then they should take the I out of TUL P :tongue3:

I'm not a huge fan of the term. It's misleading.

They are non-elect because they reject God. They do not reject God because they are non-elect.

No, they are non-elect because they haven't been elected. Just as the elect are because they have been elected. They reject God because they have no desire to repent and would rather stay with their sin. Election has to do with why people accept, not why people reject.