Why I Am Not an Arminian

Bob, a sincere thank you for that prayer.
Best Regards & Blessings.:thumbsup:

 

On page 130:

Even though the Calvinist must admit a discrimination in the redemptive intention of God in which God intends some to be saved and others to remain unregenerate, The Arminian conception of the divine will, conditioned as it is by the decision of the human free will, and thus perfectly fitted to the datum of the sovereign human free will, appears fatally flawed from any perspective in which the sovereignty of God bears any meaning. For example, if God wills and intends the salvation of all people, he wills the salvation of Judas Iscariot, while at the same time foreknowing that Judas would reject Christ. Thus God genuinely wills that which he knows will never happen, what his predestination cannot bring about, namely, the salvation of Judas. God's antecedent will, the will that all believe, is rendered hypothetical at best, and at worst null and void by his consequent will, that which his actual foreknowledge of contingents allows him to predestinate.

 

Think that MANY of us Baptists are similiar to me..
We do take as being valid either 4/5 points of the TULIP, but reject taking the Covenant theology that tends to go with Calvinism, staying instead with Dispy teaching regarding prophecy...

Do take the salvation model from calvy,but keep dispy as it relates to eschatology...

My "wrinkle" is that I also hold that Spiritual gifts still operate today, but they MUST be in a Biblical fashion!

 

From Peterson & Williams

"But we admit that our present state of knowledge prohibits us from explaining how God can love all persons savingly in the one sense and only love some savingly in another sense." (p.213)

Here is where I diverge from P&W's understanding of God's love. I know that I am in a minority even in Calvinistic ranks. I believe that the Scriptures teach not just a special kind of love for the elect,and a lesser species of love for the non-elect. It's my conviction that the elect are the only recipients of God's love.

 

I claim it, but then again, I'm a different bird than most Yet the Arminianism is more like aspects of the 'historical or Reformed' Arminian view rather than any full point.

Though see how my views are closer to Calvinism than Arminianism, I use the label non-Cal.

 

No it isn't.

Non-ANYHTING is not a good title for ANYHTING.

All that does is tell folks what you are not which doesn't identify you at all.

A title should tell folks what you ARE- not just what you are NOT.

So NO, it is NOT a good thing to call this new weird mess.

If it were then why not call them- non-arminians?

No, they need systematize this new doctrine they have developed and CALL it something.

 

Or maybe they have decided not to try and explain that which has not been explained in scripture. Our reformed brothers get them selves in trouble scripturally when they try to read into scripture and break down things like salvation by mere implication when scripture refuses to do so.

1. I believe the gospel is preached using the word of God as the Holy Spirit move in men's hearts and they are saved.

a. I do not care if there is regeneration, belief and the salvation or what ever order one would impose on it. It is not given in scripture in any order nor is salvation defined in such a way.
b. I do not care if men can decide because God opened their hearts or if salvation was imposed on men's hearts simply because of election. It just does not matter and scripture never speaks to either one.

2. I believe men will have to give account for their sin if it is not covered by the blood of Jesus.

3. I believe the gospel should be preached to all men.



The focus and debate on the supposed mechanics of salvation does not advance the Kingdom and is unnecessary.

 

"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon

 

And yet he allowed a non-calvinist like D.L. Moody preach from his very pulpit, more than once.

 

As Martin Lloyd Jones allowed Billy Graham

 

"I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both." —Charles Spurgeon, "Pride Catechized and Condemned"

 

I dont get "bent out" of shape being called anything, unless of course, it is painfully obvious that any name or title is INTENDED to be caustic, derogatory or just plain disrespectful. In truth, if one is objective, there are inconsistencies encountered or arrived at in all theological persuasions and somewhere, everyone has to " dance" a little to make things fit a neat little "systematic theology".

 

MLJ never had Billy Graham in his pulpit. Where did you hear that? Billy met with Dr.L-J to get him to endorse his London Crusade,but MLJ,though kind with Billy could not endorse that type of "ministry."

 

Dont really care pal if truth be known. Then my esteem for M L-J just went up a few notches.
Who can blame Dr L-J. Probably didnt like the man made alter calls

 

Tom, this is not true and you should know better. We have discussed this same thing months back and you agreed with me then as well. Maybe you forgot or maybe you have changed you mind again.. however I will reiterate the same arguments I gave then. (but more condensed )

First, Arminians are consistent with 'their' theology and thus their belief of falling away holds with 'their' views yet this does not cross over to those who are Not Arminianism. Your issue is that you keep trying to pigeon hole those into a category they don't belong in and thus keep attributing to them aspects that they do not adhere to.

However someone who does not hold to all 5 points can not be called Arminian anymore than someone who does not hold to all 5 points of Calvinism can be called a Calvinist. (at least by those within the systems that adhere to it) I know of VERY few 5 pointers who will even consider or allow others to consider a 4 pointer (much less a 3) to be considered Calvinist. Thus the same rule applies on the other side of the coin as well.

Secondly, the Non-Cal position is 100% consistent to its view that a believer can not change their minds once saved to loose or forfeit their salvation. This is based on the fact of their view holds that once saved God changes their nature, making a new man, that not only would not but could not desire such. Therefore to keep trying to pigeon-hole non-cals as Arminians and using such arguments that ONLY apply to an Arminian (those who subscribe to the minimum 5 points of that theological system) is not only illogical but the person who keeps making such an argument could be seen willfully ignoring the facts for another more ungodly purpose.

It would be like me calling you an Arminian. You would get bent out of shape (somewhat ) because it is not true. You can take me back to their positions and show me how you do not line up with them. Thus it is with Non-Cals. They, half to the majority, might line up with Arminians on 2 or 3 points but also line up with Calvinists on 2 or 3 points. And while I agree there are Arminians in that group who do not like to be called Arminians, usually it is because they don't know what an Arminian holds to but, as you said, have been conditioned not to like the name itself.

Also, baptists (as a whole) have no specific theological stance. We are varied and always have been. Thus to state that Baptists are Arminian is to forget our historical past and current views, in which Baptists have been both but never necessarily one or the other.

Label are handy, but they need to be accurately placed upon the ones to whom they are placed. Just because a person might hold to some aspects does not make them apart of a particular theological system. You will find quite a few Cals on the board who hold to some aspects of Hyper-Cal but that does not necessarily make them Hyper.. but it does show some flaws in their view that can more easily be addressed because it stands out against the norm for that view on the whole.

 

From The Book By Peterson And Williams

We believe that the Arminian notion of libertarian free will is false both experientially and biblically. It enshrines an almost idolatrous doctrine of the autonomous human being that is in fact closer to a biblical description of sin than true humanity. (p.117)

 

Oops.

The Baptist Times Tribute to Billy Graham

Maurice Rowlandson recounts first hearing Billy Graham preach "in 1948 at [M L-J's] Westminster Chapel". There Graham invited Rowlandson to study at Northwestern Bible College.

 

iain murray

Jerome,I have found no evidence that M-L-J allowed Billy Gram to preach from the Westminster Pulpit. At most BG was allowed to use the chapel as a base of operations for his so-called Crusades.

I am basing my info on Iain Murray's bio of M-L-J. As I said, the two men met and M-L-J was friendly but not a supporter of the Crusade-type of ministry and all that that entailed.

 

Sigh.

A fuller account:

Fifty Years in Christian Work by Maurice Rowlandson

 

I am still not convinced. I know he was welcomed to preach in the 1980's by R.T.Kendall --but not during the pastorship of Dr.M-L-Jones.

But I will do some more research.