Why Do Arminians Keep Saying Such Things?

I just knew it. Although it took one post of yours less than I thought until you threw up the dreaded "ad homs". Shows you don't know what that is either. Semi-pelagianism does not teach that "Man can and will seek after and come to God initially and completely apart from any influence and grace of God" - that's what Pelagius taught. That is full-fledged pelagianism.

Again, we're talking SEMI-pelagianism here ... at least everybody else is. Why don't you jump on board and do the same? At least then we can go further with the discussion. But as long as you're talking 'apples' while everyone else is speaking about 'organges', it really is fruitless.

 

Let me help you out here...not even C-L-O-S-E to classic arminianism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism

 

In case you need to understand SEMI- pelagianism 101...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism

 

You are going to base your point of view in a debate on a quote from .... (drum roll) wikipedia? Not that I don't think it has no value, but let's deal with what these views actually do teach. I should know ... I used to teach it.

 

...then you must have done your students a great disservice, as you do not understand pelagianism or semi pelagianism.

 

Rippon, my friend.

With all due respect, I don't believe Paul was a Calvinist.

Calvinism is simply an attempt to understand the doctrine of salvation.

 

TCGreek, of course Paul was not a "calvinist" in that sense. Actually Calvin was Pauline in his theology to get the order right.


Now, one note I would like to add.
I have in the past been willing to mildly rebuke Rippon at times when I felt that his attitude was getting in the way of his argument.

But in this case on this thread I must come to his defense.
It does not appear anyone has been reading the OP very closely.
I understood it exactly. It is blasphemy to say that God chooses randomly who will be saved.
It is also slanderous to accuse calvinists of believing that.

There are very, very few anti calvinists on this board who are even able to accurately articulate the calvinist position.

Also most anti calvinist here refuse to be categorized in any historical system of theology so in return it is impossible to accurately articulate their position either since many of them don't even know their own beliefs.

When I have attempted to set up polls to better understand people's theological positions, there simply is not enough options available to keep everyone happy.

In short, most people on the BB don't really have a clue about a detailed system of theology on the subject of soteriology. Many simply hate calvinism yet can't line up their own position with any established position from church history.

 

I agree with your statement about those who do not support Calvinism not fully understanding what Calvinists believe. It took me a while to understand and accept the ideas as being Biblical.

Yes, the idea presented of God sitting up in heaven with a magic wand zapping people at random into regeneration totally misrepresents the doctrines of grace and sovereignty. Everything God does has a purpose without error.

What I do not agree with you about is this individual referenced using the words "blasphemy and heretic" in a reckless and unjust way. He uses it so much, it has become a common adjective and noun. I have not seen anyone calling him those names.
Differences of opinion is not what stirs me up. What stirs me up are those who sit on a pedestal and condemn others for not agreeing with them, to the point of calling names that border on accusing them of being lost.

Frankly, I wish the guy was on the other side.

 

Such a stupid argument, anyone could say, oh hey you know what, I follow Pauline theology, that's why I'm not a Calvinist. :laugh:

God predestining sinners to the lake of fire doesn't line up with scripture from what I can see. The idea that God can specifically purpose 1 sinner to heaven but the next God passes over is being inconsistant with the character of God. Either way God must have a purpose or He is not God. Therefore since God has a purpose why does God choose 1 over the other?

The question doesn't bother me because God's purpose is for the gospel to be for both (not just the elect as the Calvinist would say) and both have the opportuntity to respond. No blasphemy at all. The gospel preached to 5000, God's purposes are that all 5000 can respond and come to the knowledge of the truth, repentence, faith.

A charge no Calvinist have been able to validate. Calvinist always say that when objections are asked that they don't want to answer.

For the sake of it, so what? We have the bible, we have the authority of scripture with us today and your point?

And??

Darren

 

The Lord's side is the one that is Biblical. As far as me being beside the point, the only point I see is the one on top of your head.

You use heretic and blasphemy on a regular basis, if not this thread others.

As far as you dragging back up threads from three years ago, what is it you are trying to accomplish? The issue in your case is not a belief in Calvinism, it is your reckless and arrogant attitude towards others.

Why don't you try the tone TC Greek uses in his response to your last post as to how to use grace to express a disagreement?

While you are at it, will you please show us where someone actually said the Lord picks his elect at random?

 

And so it descends into personal attacks and notes on past insults. Yeah... This is helpful Brethren.

 

This has a bearing on the op also, and in a way you could contribute the most.

 

"Those who live in glass houses..."