Why Do Arminians Keep Saying Such Things?

This line says it all right here Rippon.

 

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?

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.

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.

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

And on that, we all agree.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Darren

 

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?

 

Hello Darren,

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...

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...

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

 

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

 

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