Looks like an interesting read.
...Bob
Peterson, R. A., & Williams, M. D. (2004). Why I Am Not an Arminian. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press
...Bob
-
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!
Why I Am Not an Arminian
- Thread starter BobinKy
- Start date
Tom Butler
New Member
Actually, most Baptist are not Calvinist, nor are they Arminian.
They are sort of a hybrid, embracing some of each, although they don't claim to do so. So the most accurate description is non-Calvinist.
They are sort of a hybrid, embracing some of each, although they don't claim to do so. So the most accurate description is non-Calvinist.
Robert Snow
New Member
I know this is accurate, but some just refuse to accept it! I guess it's more fun to misquote a position and then argue about it. :smilewinkgrin:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Well stated.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I haven't read either of these, Bob, but both look interesting so I may put them on my reading list after New Years.
I bought this book about 6 months or so ago.
I give it mixed reviews. It is not as Calvinistic as I thought it would be.
I do appreciate aspects of the book. I will cite some things of value later.
A puzzling comment was made on page 93:"Upon Calvin's death in 1564,the leadership of the Geneva Academy fell upon his son-in-law,Theodore Beza."
In the past only extreme anti-Calvinists came up with this stuff.The authors may have confused the situation with Zwingli and Bullinger. The latter was a son-in-law of his predecessor.
I'll have more later.
I give it mixed reviews. It is not as Calvinistic as I thought it would be.
I do appreciate aspects of the book. I will cite some things of value later.
A puzzling comment was made on page 93:"Upon Calvin's death in 1564,the leadership of the Geneva Academy fell upon his son-in-law,Theodore Beza."
In the past only extreme anti-Calvinists came up with this stuff.The authors may have confused the situation with Zwingli and Bullinger. The latter was a son-in-law of his predecessor.
I'll have more later.
On page 101 the authors state :"Reformed Christians often seek to distance themselves from Beza by depicting him as a hyper-Calvinist."
I know the authors do not view Beza in that manner. However I am not aware that a significant number of Reformed folks characterize him in that way.
I know the authors do not view Beza in that manner. However I am not aware that a significant number of Reformed folks characterize him in that way.
Tom Butler
New Member
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Actually, most Baptist are not Calvinist, nor are they Arminian.
They are sort of a hybrid, embracing some of each, although they don't claim to do so. So the most accurate description is non-Calvinist.
I am a Baptist, a Southern Baptist, a Calvinist Southern Baptist.
Most Baptist will go to the mat for salvation by grace and eternal security, as well as free will. Therein lies the inconsistency.
They will hold to free will as regards the will to choose to repent and trust Christ for salvation, but will deny man's free will to unbelieve. The saved simply cannot exercise their will to deny Christ once they have embraced him. So the will is free only up to a point.
At least our Arminian friends are consistent. One who believes for salvation may at some point lose his salvation by reverting to unbelief.
In my own church many years ago, these same folks who will defend man's will required a member of the Free Will Baptist denomination to be baptized again (when she sought membership in our church), because the FWBs were not of like faith and order.
Further, our church would require rebaptism of someone who was a General Baptist. Why? Because General Baptists believe in a general atonement, and that one can lose his salvation.
From the doctrinal statement of the General Association of General Baptists:
I think they're wrong, of course, but they are at least being more consistent than we Baptists, who get bent out of shape if we're called Arminians.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Tom, I think you have somewhat of a misunderstanding. We nonCal/nonArms aren't inconsistant in the the belief that one can't "unbelieve" after once believing. We believe that the process of salvation includes the giving over of our will to Christ. As new creatures we no longer need that free will. Once given then to Christ, even if we try to go the opposite direction our souls are secure though our bodies will suffer the consequence of not holding to our part of the covenant. As Paul says "give such a one over to the destruction of the flesh, that the soul may yet be saved."
On page 202 the authors say:"Calvinists have adduced passages of Scripture that say Christ died for the Church(Eph 5:25),the sheep (Jn 10:15) and others as evidence for limited atonement. but this line of reasoning is not persuasive. It only stands to reason that Scripture,when talking about Christ's sheep or the Church,would say Christ died for them. That does not mean that he did not die for others. But this argument could be strengthened if some Scripture passages indicated that some are excluded."
The above sounds like Arminian drivel. They don't sound like biblical Calvinists here.
Then,on page 207 they state:"We hold to definite atonement because sometimes when the Bible speaks of Christ's saving death,it excludes some persons (Jn 10:11,15,26;17:2,9,19)."
Here they counter what they said earlier. They aren't consistent.
I'm not counting them out. I will cite some positive contributions of theirs later on.
The above sounds like Arminian drivel. They don't sound like biblical Calvinists here.
Then,on page 207 they state:"We hold to definite atonement because sometimes when the Bible speaks of Christ's saving death,it excludes some persons (Jn 10:11,15,26;17:2,9,19)."
Here they counter what they said earlier. They aren't consistent.
I'm not counting them out. I will cite some positive contributions of theirs later on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are we choosing up sides now Bob......then look at my new Avatar (The Calvinist Gadfly) LOL!:smilewinkgrin:
Old Union Brother
New Member
funny stuff......:laugh::laugh:
glfredrick
New Member
From what I've seen, the reason most people disavow themselves of Calvinism is that they don't really grasp how it works. They've heard the same sort of stuff that gets tossed about this board and have bought into some errors in thinking about the tenets of Calvinism, seeing it as fatalistic or deterministic. It is neither.
I am not ribbon (Rippon) but this being an open forum I would like to say that I am none of the above.
FWIW, I haven't found a position which satifies my intellect.
Secondly "labels" are roundly forbidden in the scripture (I am of Apollos, etc...).
Third, in keeping with that admonishment this controversy causes exactly what the scripture predicts, division, strife, puffing up in pride, disfellowship, etc.
Here is what I know about my own encounter with Jesus Christ.
As a young man in the military, I was running away from God as fast as I could.
He overtook me (what else!) and subdued me and I tapped out (MMA talk).
But here is what does satisfy me:
Romans 4
7 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
John 10
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
HankD
Last edited:
Tom writes:
"I think they're wrong, of course, but they are at least being more consistent than we Baptists, who get bent out of shape if we're called Arminians."
I have a friend who graduated many years ago from seminary as a 5 point Calvinist. He now only really believes in one point - the eternal security point. However, he still calls himself a 5-Point Calvinists; He just re-defined the other four points so he can still call himself a 5-Point Calvinist.
It is amazing how some Chrsitians get out of shape if they are called an Arminian. I guess the idea that Arminians are bad, has been so drilled into them, that they cannot accept who they really are.
"I think they're wrong, of course, but they are at least being more consistent than we Baptists, who get bent out of shape if we're called Arminians."
I have a friend who graduated many years ago from seminary as a 5 point Calvinist. He now only really believes in one point - the eternal security point. However, he still calls himself a 5-Point Calvinists; He just re-defined the other four points so he can still call himself a 5-Point Calvinist.
It is amazing how some Chrsitians get out of shape if they are called an Arminian. I guess the idea that Arminians are bad, has been so drilled into them, that they cannot accept who they really are.