The Confusion of Arminianism

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Frogman, May 8, 2003.

  1. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    A friend and brother in our Lord forwarded the following messages to me and I thought here would be a good place to air them out to dry as there is to be found from the proof shown, no water in Arminianism, but that it only brings for thistles and briers.

    http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius29.htm

    http://www.ccel.org/a/arminius/works1/htm/iv.xxiv.htm

    The above urls can furnish additional information if you desire.

    The message:

    Further we can note the following:

    So, then, we have the author and finisher of confusion, Jacobus Arminius.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Dallas,

    Now you've done it! You are going to upset Brother Bill by quoting outside sources. [​IMG]
     
  3. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me tell you, even though it will not set you on the path to truth, that there is no confusion in Arminianism. The confusion comes when you accept the tenants of absolute philosophical determinism, thanks to Plato, Aristotle and Augustine. At least through time the Roman Catholic church has evolved into a more Biblical/Arminian perspective.

    We with Augustine agree with what Jesus said, when He offered these words to us. 'Without Me you can do nothing.' This is what the general call of the Holy Spirit is when it calls to all who are priviledged to hear the Gospel unto salvation. In Revelation 22:17 there is no two layered call to sinners. There is no conditional call or exclusive call as cited by Calvinism's "Effectual Call." This would come to most of us as an unsuspected partiality and bias toward specific people. God cannot violate His own, eternal predisposition toward His own justice toward all people. Is He partial to white people and unresponsive toward orientals or blacks people, or is the Gospel open to every person? [John 3:16]
     
  4. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forgive me I did not mean to refer to the Holy Spirit as it. He is Divine and the third Person of the Godhead. My unintentional slip. Sorry.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, and Yelsew also will upset by your quoting of outside sources, Brother Dallas. He thinks that makes you an animal - a parrot. [​IMG]
     
  6. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with this, but do not believe it has occurred over time, I believe this group started out works based; beginning with Paedobaptism, then conscriptual baptism, then teaching of the necessity to pray to the saints, to mary, to add our works to the already partial account of Christ and his apostles, to pay indulgences, yea, I agree The Roman Catholic Church is definitely Arminian in nature, structure and belief----confusion, confusion, confusion. Oh what confusion---sounds almost like confucionism, but its not, its just plain old confusion, confusion.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some body tell him that I am not a parrot...I am a Frog. There is a distinct difference ya know.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  8. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi frogman;
    I feel so left out because I'm not here to defend Arminianism. [​IMG] Actually I'm here to test the doctrine of Calvinism. :D Which so Far I have found to be a false doctrine and boring [​IMG]
    Romanbear
     
  9. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is underhanded my friend; the Gospel is open to all men, no Calvinist denies this, it is effectual only to the elect, this is God's Sovereign Grace, and the best you can do when Arminius himself displays confusion with the topic is to attempt to draw an imaginary race card. How do you know I am not oriental and black? In fact you show me a pure race and I would wonder why you are searching for such?? Answer to the question to Arminius' confusion and don't try to shift the focus from this to added confusion.

    Is this the best you can do?

    Bro. Dallas
     
  10. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    You only find it false because you do not understand Grace; you only find it boring because it destroys your fallacy of a 'free-will' in man prior to regeneration.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  11. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Frogman;
    Since Calvinism and Arminianism came from the Catholics and Armininus studdied in a Calvinist College and Calvin and Augustine were both Catholics doesn't this say something about both Doctrines in that they just weren't happy with what they had and set out to discover God on there own. :D
    Romanbear
     
  12. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frogman;
    I have respect for you in that you can show respect for others. I didn't mean to be disrespectful, I was only trying to make light of the argument. Read your P.M.'s it'll cheer you up.
    Romanbear
     
  13. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dallas,

    How would you like it if someone did that to your writings on this board? Pick out a passage here and there drawing their own conclusions while leaving out the parts of your writings that explains how you come up with your conclusions.

    Its not Arminius who is confusing, its your post that is confusing. I don't agree with everything Arminus ever wrote, after all he was once a Calvinists, but I just read his article and it is much clearer than trying to wade through your cutting a pasting of certain parts while drawing various false conclusions.

    I suggest that if anyone wants a clearer picture of Arminius' actual arguments that they read the article in its entirity. (BTW, thanks for at least giving the link to the whole article, most wouldn't have done that) [​IMG]
     
  14. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Stupid is as Stupid does Sir"

    (Forrest Gump, 1995)

    Bro. Bill, I have been called ignorant, unlearned and about what ever else anyone could get away with on this board and others, yet by the Sovereign Grace of God I am able to return here and continue to witness to the truth of that Sovereignty that men love to hate. BTW, I would have posted the link if I thought many here would have read it, yet that would have just taken up space whereby those if favor of Arminian confusion's being promulgated could whine because the post was too long.

    I hope all who pass this way do read the link, if you want more I can furnish that as well, but since many are well grounded in the works based religion, there is no need of reading what a 'theologian' such as Arminius wrote, he spoke of common human nature and tried to reconcile that nature to the Divine nature of God. What is inconsistent is the method he employed was to adhere to the doctrine of total depravity, yet winding up making man's will free. Obviously a man who was confused.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
  15. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand, forgive me for 'jumpin' on your case. (But that is what Frogs do :D :D ) You are right, that PM did cheer me.

    I also understand if you guys do not want to 'associate' yourselves with Joseph Arminius (yes, I even understand Bro. Bill :D ), I can understand this because I have learned that Calvin is not my choice defender of the faith once delivered to the saints either, yet because of my belief in the Sovereignty of God and this is the most widely disputed doctrine, I am made an associate. I can assure you, I am not in line with Calvin and he would have gathered the branches and burned me with Servetus as well. So since neither side claims either of these theologians as its founder, then maybe we should rename this forum the me/you debate? :D

    God Bless you.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  16. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    only when you give that outside source as your personal belief.
     
  17. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Some body tell him that I am not a parrot...I am a Frog. There is a distinct difference ya know.

    Bro. Dallas
    </font>[/QUOTE]Yes there is a difference, when frogs come down, they bump their butts! Parrots land on their feet. [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Yelsew, since it is my style to quote well-written Calvinist advocates you will have to either 1)stop reading my posts, or 2)be continuously aggravated at me. [​IMG]
     
  19. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    ribbit [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  20. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, I'll add a serious reply...

    As someone who has read Arminius extensively, I would agree with this point completely. I will add thta in your first big quote, the words total depravity are written in - they are not Arminius' words. He would call it more of a "total inability," and with this, I agree. I have maintained on this board since I have been here that unless the Holy Spirit comes and enlightens man as to his condition, he cannot be saved.

    The next two quotes that you provided, that are ascribed to Arminius, do not appear to be his works. They seem to be the works of Augustinus and Bernardus. I don't think I've seen Arminius write such things.

    And for the record, involving faith as a gift, I think he does a great job at explaining it. It makes sense to me, but then again, it should, as he and I tend to have a similar theological bent and worldview.


    I would finish by adding that "true" Arminians would agree with total inability - that all men are unable to choose Christ because of their sin nature, and that the HOly Spirit must provide enlightenment and conviction before a choice can be made. Those who would concur with Arminius would agree with this...

    But again, as there is a spectrum of Calvinist beliefs, so there can be found in Arminianism.
     

Share This Page

Loading...