Featured Historic VS Contemporary Arminianism

I've answered each and every one of these qurstions for you at least a half dozen times given which name you have gone by here on this board. I refuse to do it again. Better yet, post one person that believes what you said.

 

I've been considering responding to your Op for days....It's a good question which requires some real thought IMO...Your actual "question" isn't very clear, truth be told...but in conjunction with your previous thread...I think you are deserving of some response...here goes:

The article you cite is confusing inasmuch as technically, he is "correct" but, he is only "correct" for the wrong reasons.
He is absolutely right, on the one hand, that "classical" or "historic" Arminianism is decidedly different from the "Arminianism" (he calls it) commonly taught in many evangelical circles today.....

This is no secret. Arminian Theologian Roger Olson has for YEARS. belabored the explanation that in this modern era, there are not many "Arminians" out there, but what he considers to be a sort of "folk" religion more reminiscent in his mind of "Pelagianism" or "semi-Pelagianism" (so-called)...
What we have commonly in this country is something of a hybrid "Wesleyan"/Charles Finney thingy...........which is not confessional but "folk".......like a guitar. A "guitar" does not exist in any symphony orchestra, it's a "folk" instrument..So also much of the modern theology taught in many American Churches.

What they are NOT though...is "Arminian".....

I have spent (or wasted) numerous hours reading and re-reading the countless articles on this guys cite....and frankly, I have NEVER actually encountered a more un-informed and un-helpful individual as this one. This guy simply doesn't know what he is talking about. His errors TRULY are innumerable, and his utter confusion between what might properly be linked between "Arminianism" and "Semi-Pelagianism" or "Pelagianism" (or whatever link he wants to create in his mind).....is incurable.

I would suggest an alternative source personally, because frankly, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

However, in conjunction with the previous questions you have asked about the modern practical Theology extant in America....there is some sense in which he is by sheer stupid accident (and I mean truly stupid) correct... Modern American Theology is NOT commonly either "Calvinist" or "Arminian"....it is NEITHER...it is a "folk" sort of soteriology not particularly married to either system. In other words....Roger Olson is right, and subsequently, so is this guy, but only by happy accident, since having read numerous links and articles by this moron...he may be the most pathetic wannabe Theologian I have ever read.

I would advise a different cite from which to glean knowledge....even the "Founders.org" people (I am no fan) at least aren't NEARLY so ill-informed as this guy.

The short answer is that within pre-existing Theological circles...no form of "Arminianism" is growing at all, in point of fact, I would argue that "Calvinism" is the growing trend within the conservative theological circles. However, there remains some "growth" in churches in the US which hold to something of the hybrid "Semi-Pelagian"/Finney-esque....theology so extant in the last 150 years or so. THAT theology is not really either "Arminian" nor "Calvinist" at all. It isn't really a "Theology" of any kind at all really, it's just a folksy hodge-podge of "it doesn't really matter" to be honest with you.

But it is neither "Arminian" nor "Calvinist"........and the implied link to Pelagius in this article simply does not exist.

 

It ISN'T a "GOOD" article Icon.....it's a VERY stupid one. Hence my objecion that you can't possibly distinguish between "good" Calvinist Theology from utterly "moronic" Calvisim..........Trust me my friend:

1.) There are "stupid" Arminians
2.) There are "stupid" Calvinists
3.) There are "stupid" Arminian articles
4.) There are "stupid" Calvinist articles

This particular Calvinist article was sheerly stupid...I linked and read this moron for countless wasted hours...his articles get NO BETTER.

You are wise to say "good" about Lorrainne Boettner, a "good" Calvinist...and you are wise to link to B.B. Warfield, another smart Calvinist...there are numerous others...

But you lose ALL credibility, when you say this article was "GOOD"...it wasn't...it was rather stupid, and having read the bulk of everything he has to say on his cite....he doesn't improve one iota:

He is a "stupid" Calvinist.....and YOU DON'T KNOW the difference.

 

HOS,

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon would shred your ideas in short order without working up a sweat. How you casually dismiss them as if they have nothing to say is incredulus.

He lives down in either Jupiter Florida, or Coconut Creek. Why not take a ride and dazzle him with your ideas and see how that works out. Let me know how that face to face meeting goes.

 

HeirofSalvation

 

The man's article was simply foolish. This strange notion, that someone who publishes a public article is owed some kind of personal visist from me to criticize it is unusual at best. Since when do you Icon, for instance, feel the need to contact Roger Olson personally? You have attacked him before and not (I assume) felt the need to have an elongated discourse with him have you?

Does EVERY person who has a criticism of McMahon owe him a visit??? I think he'd be a rather busy man if EVERY person who thinks his articles stupid gave him a call wouldn't it?

I gave my advice in answer to EWF's question. My advice was, essentially he's right (in a weird way) for the wrong reasons, but, generally, he is probably the worst source I have seen.

I'll tell you this, if I were going to create a "spoof" Calvinist website, I would make it JUST like this one. As far as a Theology website goes, this is to Biblical Theology what "the Onion" is for journalism.

Did you guys READ this guys articles? I think given what he has to say about Arminians and Arminianism etc....opens him up to criticism. His continuous referrences to Arminianism as "lies from the pit of hell" blah blah blah. Frankly, I don't think a guy who is so VERY vicious towards fellow Christian is OWED a polite rejoinder from every critic he has. He has some kind of ridiculous disparragement like this every third sentence. If this is the kind of source you actually take seriously to learn from..........then you are beyond helping.

 

Is this the guy who is dressed as a Puritan? :tongue3:

I laughed when I read that article, that guy simply hates anyone who is not a Calvinist. He did not write one thing in that article that refutes Arminianism.

Simply assuming you are correct does not make it so.

 

I've read that article: Quite frankly....I don't even take this guy seriously. This article is one of the reasons no one should. His writings are so laughable, that they're not even insulting. If I didn't know better, I would actually think this site was a spoof on Calvinism.

Look, I was merely suggesting that you seek other souces of information. You can take that or leave it.

 

HeirofSalvation

.

Well ...he lives by you, so why is the request so strange?If you have read what you claimed to have read, you could....help him out:thumbsup:

I have no problem to speak with Roger Olson, except I have not found him in Oregon, or Washington state.

I believe Skan posted a link or two of his, that I read and reacted with.If you claim him for a "good source" you are in trouble. I posted his statements and showed why they do not fly.....you have avoided both links that ewf posted.
They are accurate and you and winman will just mock rather than interact with them.....but we have seen this before:wavey:

not everyone lives near there...I might get to meet with him sometime.
Not everyone called him names as you have.Why would he really want to meet with you anyhow:laugh: I would pay to see it though.
Hos...have you ever met with any of these men...face to face?

All of these men are busy...so if you intended to meet, you would have to get control over yourself so as to be taken seriously....This bluster and name calling does not go anywhere!

Take the second link and show how bad it is...since you claim it is so...

lol..ok...while humorous...you offer nothing of substance.

I have not read that many....not that I would not, I just have a ton of reading I am working through....I have listened to many of his lectures however.I do not agree with everything, but I do not have to.He is not one of my main sources...but he is a christian brother.

That is fair to say...but be critical of specfic content, not childish name calling.
You have barely offered anything on this.

 

I really don't have a dog in this fight and have no desire to read the article linked at the OP. But the whole time I'm reading this thread I'm thinking wouldn't it be fun to read an Arminian written companion article comparing the real historical puritians with the new and improved modern north american puritains?

I personally find that I agree more with what is taught by calvinists than the arminian side of things but in an effort to broaden my horizons have read some arminian works. One such book comes to mind by the late Mildred Bangs Wynkoop Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology. After a few false starts I finally made some headway in this small book and while Wynkoop has failed to gain a convert and in places really makes me cringe, I must say that the little lady overall shreads the Augustine/Calvinist template. It would be interesting to see someone like her contrast historical/modern puritains.

 

One of the main reasons that calvinism in regard to Sotierology made more sense to me was that they see the death of jesus provide a definite salvation for some, while Arminianism sees his death providing salvation for potentially all, but also potentially none!

Seemed that God would be "wasting" the death of christ if he hadto entrust who got saved to our 'freewill" moral decisions!

 

On the other hand, Calvinism retains a modified but Biblically dubious RCC ecclesiology.

In my personal experience, while I give God 100% of the credit for saving me from a life of sin, the human messenger who was the first to deliver the good news to thomas15 and several members of my family was a Major in the Salvation Army. Very much the Arminian. And it wasn't the words coming out of his mouth that made me take notice, it was the deeds of his hand and the kindness of his heart.

 

Kind of as Paul stated here?

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal 2:21

Also beings to mind another thought. In Arminianism would it not be almost as easy to keep the law unto salvation as it would be to believe in (whatever that means) Christ unto salvation?

 

NO...it wouldn't...in "Arminianism" it is not even POSSIBLE to "keep the law" except for God's grace...you know the "depravity thing???"?" whether it be saving grace or no, it is all of God....But, no-one on this board understands actual Arminian Theology one whit...so why bother...certainly, the moron who wrote the articles referenced in this thread cannot distinguish between Arminianism or Pelagianism...so why bother??