I dont know about that, but here is what Martyn Lloyd Jones said about alter calls:
http://www.banneroftruth.co.uk/pages/articles/article_detail.php?422
-
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
I dont know about that, but here is what Martyn Lloyd Jones said about alter calls:
http://www.banneroftruth.co.uk/pages/articles/article_detail.php?422
From Peterson & Williams
Arminius rejected the Calvinist belief in meticulous providence and absolute predestination in which God's sovereign plan superintends and orders all things. In its place he elevates human free will to an unqualified dictum of his theology. Where the Calvinists affirmed a human freedom that is enveloped by and subordinate to the sovereign will of God,Arminius would affirm an unqualified human freedom and then define divine sovereignty such that it enables but does not conflict with human freedom. The will of God cannot,according to Arminius,circumscribe human choices such that any particular choice is metaphysically necessary. Divine determination of any degree or stripe is a violation of the integrity of the human free will. To be free,the will must be free from all coercion. The integrity of the autonomous creature is the one irreducible theological principle of Arminius's thought. God's power and will are unabashedly circumscribed by the principle of human autonomy. If it is appropriate to speak of a doctrine of sovereignty here,it appears that it can only be the sovereignty of the human will. In Arminius's thinking,God can get his way only if he happens to be traveling in the same direction that we are. (p.111)
Arminius rejected the Calvinist belief in meticulous providence and absolute predestination in which God's sovereign plan superintends and orders all things. In its place he elevates human free will to an unqualified dictum of his theology. Where the Calvinists affirmed a human freedom that is enveloped by and subordinate to the sovereign will of God,Arminius would affirm an unqualified human freedom and then define divine sovereignty such that it enables but does not conflict with human freedom. The will of God cannot,according to Arminius,circumscribe human choices such that any particular choice is metaphysically necessary. Divine determination of any degree or stripe is a violation of the integrity of the human free will. To be free,the will must be free from all coercion. The integrity of the autonomous creature is the one irreducible theological principle of Arminius's thought. God's power and will are unabashedly circumscribed by the principle of human autonomy. If it is appropriate to speak of a doctrine of sovereignty here,it appears that it can only be the sovereignty of the human will. In Arminius's thinking,God can get his way only if he happens to be traveling in the same direction that we are. (p.111)
Yea, Dr. Jones, as usual nails it. I find very little that I really disagree with him on.
glfredrick
New Member
Or, as I have stated it in very simple terms: "Rebellion against God." Exerting human free will before and above God's divine will IS the sin that Christ came to crucify. It IS the sin of Genesis 3. And, it REMAINS our sin in every era. It is either all God or no God at all at the end of the day.
Because i believe that Jesus' death was an ACTUAL ATONEMENT for the sins of Gods elect people with the result that these, and only these, are delivered from sin's penalty.
glfredrick
New Member
ANY other response indicates that God is not sufficient to accomplish His divine will and purpose. Saying such about God is akin to believing the lies of the enemy concerniing God.
Christ dying for ALL of humanity means one of two possible things: Universal salvation or Christ was innefective to make good on the atonement that He provided. Placing the onus for salvation on a choice of humankind, when in fact, humanity could not and can not provide for one lick of its own salvation, does not eliminate the two choices outlined above.
Tom Butler
New Member
Allan, it has been a while since I checked this thread, so forgive the delay in replying.
I took this excerpt from your post #55, which responded to post #20.
Maybe we should start over. Part of the section you quoted was actually drfuss's response, so the two got mixed together.
I have tried to be consistent in refusing to label Baptists who are not Calvinists as Arminian.
I agree with you that a truly saved person, with his new nature, will not desire to be lost. And, that our security is not based on our will, but on God's promise. But we may desire to sin.
menageriekeeper said this:
I don't think we give up our wills when we are saved; in fact our wills are no longer enslaved by sin. But our desires do change.
On the other hand, Arminians do believe that a professing Christian may freely reject that salvation. That is, if they will to believe, they can will to un-believe.
That's why the idea that a new believer's will is no longer free strikes me as inconsistent, while the Arminian view is consistent with everything else he believes.
Well, it really goes from that post as well as your post #9.
Fair enough. My main point of disagreement was not about labeling but making the assumption that Arminians are more consistent in their theology by presupposing that Non-Cals apparently hold to the same views as the Arminians but are different in eternal security. This is not correct since only a small portions of non-Cals hold to the 4 points Arminianism. In fact the vast majority of non-cals only hold to 2 to 3 points and even then they are modified versions of them, in the main.
Also it is 'seemingly' notable that in your post you place non-cals as being the same as Arminians (with the exception of eternal security) as per the below section of your post:
One can not be an Arminian if they only hold to 2, at most 3 points of such a system any more than one can be called a Calvinist who holds to only 2 at most 3 points.
The vast majority of Baptists hold to about 2 and half to 3 points of the Reformed view. It was this 'seeming' concept that I was also addressing. If that is not what you meant then my apologies.
Well, it is true in both aspects. Our salvation is secured because of God and maintained by His promise. Yet the change in our nature keeps us from such rebellion that we fight against the security we have in Christ Jesus.
God could not/will not save us apart from our desire/will to do so, but nor will He keep us against our will/desire. Thus the change of our nature is in keeping with promise to secure us in Him. It is the two sides of the coin
I agree we do not give up our will.
However, what you asserted was that Arminians are the only ones consistent in their theology (apart from Calvinists) seemingly postulating the Non-Cals hold to the same theological view as Arminians with the exception of eternal security.
This is not true, as our view of eternal security is distinctly different from the Arminians, and as such, we (like the C and A's) are consistent with the theology we hold.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Allan, thanks. I really think we are pretty close on all this, and maybe my semantic inadequacies are getting in the way.
That's exactly right. Until the last century with the rise of what I consider to be the backwater theologies of the IFB's N
NE believed this weird hodge-podge of doctrines. Christians never believed this stuff before. What you believe while holding on to slim parts of Calvinism but MAINLY embracing Arminianism and embracing either one howsoever it suits you with no regard to how it all fits together- that is NEW DOCTRINE.The IFB's under, perhaps the influence of Finney, (ultimately Finney- I know the IFB's came along a good deal after Finney) gave you this stuff you call doctrine.
But no theologian before the last century espoused it.
You all just MADE IT UP.
The Southern Baptists have historically been Calvinistic until they gave in to this weird eclectic stuff you espouse.
Arminianism is consistent. No one point stands in contradiction to another. It has biblical support and is sufficiently systematized and represents the beliefs of many theologians throughout Church History.
That makes Arminianism which Free Will Baptists and Methodists adhere to a FAR better theology than what you guys made up just a few years ago.
[/QUOTE]
This is not true, as our view of eternal security is distinctly different from the Arminians, and as such, we (like the C and A's) are consistent with the theology we hold.[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense.
This is not true, as our view of eternal security is distinctly different from the Arminians, and as such, we (like the C and A's) are consistent with the theology we hold.[/QUOTE]That's exactly right. Until the last century with the rise of what I consider to be the backwater theologies of the IFB's N
The IFB's under, perhaps the influence of Finney, (ultimately Finney- I know the IFB's came along a good deal after Finney) gave you this stuff you call doctrine.
But no theologian before the last century espoused it.
You all just MADE IT UP.
The Southern Baptists have historically been Calvinistic until they gave in to this weird eclectic stuff you espouse.
Arminianism is consistent. No one point stands in contradiction to another. It has biblical support and is sufficiently systematized and represents the beliefs of many theologians throughout Church History.
That makes Arminianism which Free Will Baptists and Methodists adhere to a FAR better theology than what you guys made up just a few years ago.
That makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
Interesting take on this Luke. Could you back this theory up with data so I could absorb it better....at this point I view some of your points as conjecture.
Thanks
Steve
Luke, while I don’t interact with you much I do agree with a high percentage of what you write. But here you seem to be saying that-----either you’re a 5 point Calvinist, a 5 point Arminian, or your simply unbiblical---is this your view?That's exactly right. Until the last century with the rise of what I consider to be the backwater theologies of the IFB's N
The IFB's under, perhaps the influence of Finney, (ultimately Finney- I know the IFB's came along a good deal after Finney) gave you this stuff you call doctrine.
But no theologian before the last century espoused it.
You all just MADE IT UP.
The Southern Baptists have historically been Calvinistic until they gave in to this weird eclectic stuff you espouse.
Arminianism is consistent. No one point stands in contradiction to another. It has biblical support and is sufficiently systematized and represents the beliefs of many theologians throughout Church History.
That makes Arminianism which Free Will Baptists and Methodists adhere to a FAR better theology than what you guys made up just a few years ago.
glfredrick
New Member
That makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
Interesting take on this Luke. Could you back this theory up with data so I could absorb it better....at this point I view some of your points as conjecture.
Thanks
Steve[/QUOTE]
Amyraldian, perhaps? We often fail to note that distinction, which is more typically a Baptist perspective -- at least the run of the mill man in the pew...
Amyraldian, perhaps? We often fail to note that distinction, which is more typically a Baptist perspective -- at least the run of the mill man in the pew...[/QUOTE]
Now Im confused (DUH). Probably because Im the typical "run of the mill man in the pew". What are you trying to get across to me?
That's exactly right. Until the last century with the rise of what I consider to be the backwater theologies of the IFB's N
The IFB's under, perhaps the influence of Finney, (ultimately Finney- I know the IFB's came along a good deal after Finney) gave you this stuff you call doctrine.
But no theologian before the last century espoused it.
You all just MADE IT UP.
The Southern Baptists have historically been Calvinistic until they gave in to this weird eclectic stuff you espouse.
Arminianism is consistent. No one point stands in contradiction to another. It has biblical support and is sufficiently systematized and represents the beliefs of many theologians throughout Church History.
That makes Arminianism which Free Will Baptists and Methodists adhere to a FAR better theology than what you guys made up just a few years ago.
This is not true, as our view of eternal security is distinctly different from the Arminians, and as such, we (like the C and A's) are consistent with the theology we hold.
Your understanding of history and theology demonstrates a level of ineptitude, bordering on the imbecilic. - and I mean that is a very caring way.
glfredrick
New Member
Now Im confused (DUH). Probably because Im the typical "run of the mill man in the pew". What are you trying to get across to me?[/QUOTE]
My point is, very simply, that there is another position between Calvinism and Arminianism, and that is Amyraldism (or Amyraldianism). It is essentially 3-4 point Calvinism, but the points are not just removed, it is more like they are shifted and several are changed a tad. I've found that to be a more typical Baptist position than either Calvinism or Arminianism.
This next is not to get down on anyone, but at times as I read the back-and-forth on this board over Calvinism and Arminianism. I recognize that a god many people are a mile wide and an inch deep in their grasp of theology, either systematic or biblical. I'm not even setting myself up as the expert or anything. I'm not... Just an observation built on reading a lot of threads and seeing a lot of arguments that lack coherence and a rational propositional basis (mine included).
EDIT: Back to the discussion above... The attempt to pigeon-hole everyone into either Calvinist or Arminian theology fails because those are not the only choices. Also, because there IS a theological position that DOES describe every vantage point along a continuum between hyper-Calvinism (utter determinism) and Pelagianism (utter human effort) we should look to see if our own theology is in fact coherent (does not violate the Law of Non-Contradiction) and workable in the real world (note that "factual" is not one of the requirements, for the very nature of theology is that it is a framework applied OVER the Scriptures in order to make sense of the wide-range of Scriptural points of view presented by God).
Last edited by a moderator:
My point is, very simply, that there is another position between Calvinism and Arminianism, and that is Amyraldism (or Amyraldianism). It is essentially 3-4 point Calvinism, but the points are not just removed, it is more like they are shifted and several are changed a tad. I've found that to be a more typical Baptist position than either Calvinism or Arminianism.
This next is not to get down on anyone, but at times as I read the back-and-forth on this board over Calvinism and Arminianism. I recognize that a god many people are a mile wide and an inch deep in their grasp of theology, either systematic or biblical. I'm not even setting myself up as the expert or anything. I'm not... Just an observation built on reading a lot of threads and seeing a lot of arguments that lack coherence and a rational propositional basis (mine included).[/QUOTE]
Just a follow up question on your point...
IF one believes in all TULIP except hold that in the Death of Christ, God made it POSSIBLE that all men could be saved, but that ONLY those elected by Him get its benefit...
What is THAT position?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Speaking from the "run of the mill man in the pew" position, I'm turned off by it all. If I didn't have such a desire to learn, well I think you understand my point. Anyway I am committed to my DoG beliefs so I will continue on in my studies of Calvinistic Theology. Most attacks in fact have caused me to be more resolute in my beliefs. I just wonder how many people in the pews would also see these vitriolic exercises as a turnoff & have it effect their perception of Church, Religion, God, Ministry etc. I know that Ive been adversely effected.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very gracious of you Allan, in your typical Passive/Aggressive manner -- and I mean that is a very caring way. :smilewinkgrin:
Allan this is just ignorant, low class drive-by posting. You and webdog are eat up with that childish mess. If you are going to hurl accusations BACK THEM UP.
Otherwise you are doing nothing but antagonizing.
BACK IT UP.
You and Webdog- be men.