Why I Am Not an Arminian

No, that is not my view.

What Calvinism and Arminianism are, however, are representations of what various groups of TRUE Christians (iow, not heretics) have believed since the Apostles. They have HISTORICITY.

On top of that, they are systematized and have endured hundreds of years of scrutiny.

MOST other systematized theologies are a variation of one or the other.

Pentecostalism is NOT historical. It is NOT a variation of ANYTHING that truly Christian people have believed since the Apostles. I have a problem with that- as should you and every other Christian who cares about doctrine.

This new Independent Baptist theology that took over SBC a hundred years ago (I know when Independents arose. Their theology existed before they did coming down as a variation of the doctrines of Finney as best I can tell) is also NOT a variation of anything any Christian group has ever believed.

It is NOT systematized because it cannot be. Since it is a hodge podge of doctrines they eclectically put together to suit them- some doctrines cannot be reconciled with others.

It is utter nonsense and I honestly believe that TRULY educated and intelligent people BY AND LARGE cannot adhere to this. Good people- sure. Well meaning people- absolutely. Godly people even. But not deeply thoughtful people.

It is dangerous because it is built on an arrogance that haphazardly abandons what Christians have worked out over two thousand years of history. It is arrogance in that it says- "Christian history and orthodoxy be HANGED! We don't NEED it!"

 

This is far from the truth. Finney was a heretic. He became the president of Oberlin College and thus his brand of theology was known as Oberlin Theology. He did not believe in the depravity of man or that man had a sin nature. He believed in the basic goodness of man, and that it was possible to build a community on earth of sinless Christians.

He believed the means justified the ends. Thus the mourners bench, the altar call, etc. is attributable to him. He would use almost any tactic (psychological or otherwise) to get the people down the aisle. Thus people saw him as a great evangelist for the popularity and numbers he was able to attract, but his theology was heretical. No Baptist today in their right mind would want to be associated with Finney.

 

a VARIATION of the doctrines of Finney...

 

Luke.....youve been reading RC Sproul.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I own the book. I really liked the chapter on human freedom.

here are some clips...

"The incompadibilist seeks to find some room for the sovereignty of God within the assumption of libertarian freedom. But incompatibilism fails badly as a way of understanding the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. First, it assumes a libertarian view of freedom. Human beings always possess the power of contrary choice. Second, incompatibilism insists that such a notion of freedom is the necessary condition for moral accountability: I cannot be held responsible if I could not choose to do otherwise. Third, in this view the sovereignty of God is necessarily limited by human freedom. If God has ordained that I perform some act, I could not choose otherwise and thus I am not truly free. While this collection of assumptions constitutes a coherent whole, each is no more than an assumption. And while they are all taken as having self-evident power within Arminian theological circles, we can find no evidence that scripture teaches or assumes any of them.---

---Scripture seems to deny the very sort of independence that the libertarian freedom demands. Human beings are never independent of God. Whereas incompatibilism holds that libertarian freedom--independence from all causes and forces external to the will--is the prerequisite for responsibility, the Bible seams to assume the opposite: responsibility is the necessary condition for freedom. The gift of responsible choice has meaning and significance not because of any connection to libertarian freedom but because it is an essential aspect of our imaging God. Freedom in scripture is not independence from God and His will but dependence upon God and our faithful participation in His Kingdom.

True freedom, freedom in the Biblical sense, is the liberty to obey God without restraint, without sin standing in the way.---

---Scripture teaches that the sinner is a slave to sin. A slave is not free but bound. Any discussion of freedom within a Christian or Biblical context must do justice to this fundamental Biblical principle: sin reigns over the unregenerate heart. The sinner is not free to please or love God. Biblical freedom, the ability to do that which is pleasing to God ( John 8:34-36; cf. Romans 6:15-23; 2 Corinthians 3:17 ), Freedom from sin, is given to us by the redemtive work of Christ.---

---Jesus said: "The good man brings forth good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored in his heart. For out of the outflow of his heart his mouth speaks" ( Luke 6:45; cf. Matthew 7:15-20; Matthew 12:33-35 ). A person chooses and acts according to his character. The will is not independent of the person and nature who chooses. We do what we want to do ( Deuteronomy 30:19; Matthew 17:12 Jas 1:14), even though our characters, which are themselves determined by a myriad of forces external to us and outside of our control, determine what we want to do. Personal character is not nearly as spontaneous as those who see the will as a power of contrary choice like to suggest."

I like this definition...

"The compatibilist holds that every human and action has a sufficient cause outside of the human will. Freedom in the compatibilist sense is the contention that even if every choice we make and every act we perform is determined by forces outside ourselves, and ultimately by God's ordaining guidance, we are still free, for we still act according to our desires." -- (Taken from the book "why I am not an arminian")

 

Sigh.

Why you would doubt that saint's testimony is beyond me.

Billy Graham did preach there during Martyn Lloyd-Jones's pastorate.

United Nations Forces Witness Team archives (UK Youth For Christ affiliate):

Martyn Lloyd-Jones's Westminster Chapel was the site for many of the group's revival meetings:

 

How about this:

From a bulletin from one of the meetings mentioned in the preceding post, the speakers are:

Rev. Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, M.R.C.P.

Mrs W. Mainwaring-Burton

and

The Rev. Bryan S. W. Green, B.D.



How many of today's "neo-Reformed" pastors would share the platform with a woman?

 

Top three reasons why folks are not Arminian.

(1) Once saved, always saved, 1 Peter 1:3-5

(2) We are saved by grace through faith, and not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9.

(3) God saves us individually, we do not save ourselves by trusting in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30.

 

I suspect tons. I would. I don't approve but I would share the platform.

Next question.

 

I'm sure Piper would too given the right circumstance. But ML-J still maintains my interest for his devotion to Christian Truth above all. Read his book on the Baptism & Gifts of the HS " Joy Unspeakable". He unequivocally supports the belief on the continuance of gifts. For that he was excoriated by many....even the Banners of Truth Reformed Publishing House that he helped found refused to publish the book. He (M L-J ) stated in the book " I am not here to give voice to my own opinions; God knows we all have to be careful; so let us listen to Scripture." Then he expounded on Scripture, using it as the basis for his claims.

A very unique man indeed.:thumbs:

 

Oh, John Piper himself has had Joni Eareckson Tada speak at his own conference.

And you can hear Beth Moore at the Passion extravaganzas.

But the T4G Conference is always all staff, no distaff, year after year.

And in two decades of Founders conferences, the only women speakers have been Mrs. Tom Ascol and Mrs. Ray Ortlund, who jointly spoke on the topic "Stand by Your Man" one year.