The Case for Arminianism

I hear you.

 

"if there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?" Amos 3:6

Amos 3:1, "Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O children of Israel..." (emphasis mine)

"Calamity"
n
1. disaster: a disastrous situation or event
2. distress: misery or distress resulting from a disastrous event (archaic)

 

Generally speaking, to most Calvinists, anyone who is not not a Calvinist must be an Arminian. This is a deliberate stereotype, designed to keep everybody in the flock through fear, and make anyone with different views a "bogieman". You see this in politics, every Democrat must be a liberal-commie-athiest-baby killin'-f*g, and every Republican must be a conservative-gun totin'-war mongerin'-male chauvinist-greedy rich-right wing religious fanatic.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

This is a ridiculously stupid statement. Your logic is hideous. You are setting up a false caricature of Calvinism. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing this. But, as we've seen, you show no shame when spreading the false caricature of Calvinism. This is conduct that is simply unbecoming of a Christian.

The Archangel

 

It has nothing to do with logic I agree. That many Cals believe all non-Cals must be Arminians is completely illogical. But this is the reality, probably every non-Cal that posts frequently here at BB has been called an Arminian at least once. I have been accused of being an Arminian by Cals probably dozens of times, along with being a Pelagian, heretic, unsaved, child of Satan, and probably some I can't recall at the moment, it is difficult to remember so many names. Start a simple poll asking non-Cals here if they have ever been accused of being an Arminian by Cals here and see for yourself.

 

Again, you missed the point. I made my statement, and stand by it, reacting to this:

This is a deliberate stereotype, designed to keep everybody in the flock through fear, and make anyone with different views a "bogieman". You see this in politics, every Democrat must be a liberal-commie-athiest-baby killin'-f*g, and every Republican must be a conservative-gun totin'-war mongerin'-male chauvinist-greedy rich-right wing religious fanatic.
​

No Calvinist I know talks about keeping people in the flock by fear. This is patently false. Then, you go on to make a ridiculously nonsensical comparison between Calvinists and Democrats and Republicans. Of course, you never once talk about "tactics" that non-Calvinists use to dissuade people from investigating Calvinism or reformed theology, but I digress.

The comparison is hideously stupid, and you ought to know better.

The Archangel

 

Just because you don't openly talk about it doesn't mean it isn't taking place. Lots of groups do this, the JWs constantly tell their people that all other churches are under the control of Satan and spreading lies that can damn them. This is so effective that many JWs are terrified to talk about the scriptures with a non-JW. They never hear the truth and so never leave the church. Everybody knows the RCC teaches there is no salvation outside the RCC, this keeps people in fear and prevents them from leaving. Calvinism teaches that non-Cals like myself practice a man-centered salvation that denies God's sovereignty, they teach that coming to Jesus for salvation as he commanded to do is a work. All of this creates fear to control people. If a non-Cal says he received Christ or called on Jesus for salvation you brand him an Arminian, or even worse a Pelagian.

 

This post is a study in clue-less-ness.

At least this is true. But, what you are talking about here are cults (the RCC being, at times, cult-ish...I'm not comfortable labeling them as a cult).

The problem here is that you you are comparing Calvinism to Jehovah's witnesses and other cults. Calvinism is not a cult. By definition, a cult is heretical and full of people who are not Christians. Therefore, I can only assume you are saying Calvinists are cultists and, as a cult, we are not believers.

This is patently false...and you've been told this before. As a Calvinist, I preach the Gospel every week and I call on anyone who might be a non-believer to receive Christ. In any and all encounters of personal evangelism I call on people to receive Christ.

You are fighting a strawman--a caricature rather than a true picture. Again, this is hideously stupid and is conduct unbecoming a Christian (that is to intentionally misrepresent us).

Your stolid opposition to simple fact is staggering. I fear you are like the little child with his hands over his ears screaming "la-la-la-la-la" simply because you don't want to be taught or face reality. Sad. Troubling.

The Archangel

 

Archangel, do not think I am accusing you of intentionally trying to frighten people to keep them in the flock, I am not. Most folks, even pastors are not aware they are doing this. It is built into the system, you are just teaching what you were taught. And this goes on in all groups to a degree, even in my church (IFB). But some practice it to a great degree, the JWs probably being the worst. But what names do non-Cals call Cals here? I've never directly called a Cal a heretic, although I have on occasion said I believed some facets are heresy. Probably the worst thing I've accused Calvinism of is deriving from Augustine who I personally believe taught much serious error, but that is true and almost all Calvinists openly and even proudly speak of Augustine as an important contribution to Calvinism. But what names do us non-Cals call you? Almost none that I can think of, and certainly not to the degree you call us names. Personally, I am not bothered when Cals call me names like a Pelagian. That has far more effect on Calvinists here, making them afraid of considering any argument I or other non-Cals might present. And that is the whole idea.

 

No, all I am saying is when you call people names like Pelagian you are practicing this technique of instilling fear. It is not so much to insult us as it is to frighten fellow Cals from daring to listen to an opposing view.

No, I am saying you are using their technique of instilling fear in your own members so they will not listen to any opposing view.

A Cal here wrote a long post yesterday saying us non-Cals who say things like "I received Christ" were in error and implied a person saved themselves.

This is not the same technique, this is a simple insult.

 

You persist in spewing wrong information and false accusations such as "you are practicing this technique of instilling fear" and that I myself instill fear in the members of my church? Are you serious? You've never been to our church nor have you heard me preach. Yet you are making serious and false accusations when you have absolutely no experience or basis in fact to do so.

It would be one thing if you said "some Calvinists do this or that." But, no, you make a false universal application out of a very small minority of Calvinists when, as we have tried (to no avail) to tell you that most Calvinists do not fit the false and warped caricature that has infiltrated--unchecked--your mind. Perhaps, like those in WWII that referred to the Germans and Japanese by racial slurs so they wouldn't have to think of them as human beings, you have adopted this caricature so that you feel better belittling, demeaning, and assassinating the character of persons you should be calling "brother." Perhaps you have adopted this false view of us so that you can sleep better at night, considering your falsehoods against us to be no big deal because you consider us to be less-than-Christian.

Through your actions in spreading patently false information and accusations, which is conduct unbecoming of a Christian, you are proving again (and again and again) that you simply aren't worth the keystrokes.

The Archangel

 

This is common practice for this fellow the archangel. I was called arrogant and other names for describing the Gospel as scripturally laid out, in the same exact manner as he described it, and was also told I was correcting Jesus in doing so, twisting the words of Christ. It's the exact same thing as calling one the h word without actually saying it.

Threads turn this way with him in them. I asked kindly for him not to engage in polemics with me, but to have dialogue that was edifying. He took the low road.

An apology would be appropriate Christian behavior for his actions.

Amen. After my plea to him to apologize, that is where I too leave it. And it's not to me only this needs to be done, as can be seen clearly.

 

Actually there is great need to reconcile these two positions, simply because one side pits the Bible against the other side. The Bible is not divided, nor is God divided. To the extent that any one of us does this, we are not accurately interpreting the Scriptures, that includes, you, me, and anyone else that debates this issue.

Reconciliation of the two positions will likely not make either "side" happy, but who cares. What SHOULD matter is not whether we are Calvinist or Arminian (or worse, Pelagian or hyper-Calvinist -- heretical positions) but whether we are biblical.

Taking a hard stance on either position is probably the wrong stance, because somehow, the free will that we do have must be accounted for, as well as God's sovereignty -- an error that I've seen in both camps. The more strident the Arminians, the more they bring intentional fallacies against Calvinists. The more strident the Calvinist, the more they bring intentional fallacies against the Arminians. Both violate commandments of Christ “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12 ESV), and "Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one." (John 17:11 ESV).

We SHOULD take a hard stance on what is biblical... That is a given. But when one brother sets the Bible against another brother who is doing likewise, then there is something wrong with both theological views. We CANNOT fight our battles by dividing God's Word against each other. That is not of God!

 

I don't believe that the doing of this makes eithers views then wrong.

The spirit of the battle may be wrong, but this does not destroy truth in either position.

Also, I believe "love" is flown as the flagship wrongly (rather lack thereof) at times, in that lack thereof is usually attributed to those in a heated debate. Isn't this accusatory in a sense? I don't see it black and white like this. Neither do the Scriptures in my opinion. I am certain Paul loved Peter, and Paul loved Barnabas, and vice versa on both accounts, even when the debate got heated between them. (Galatians 2:11 and Acts 15:39 respectively.)

I think it is the same here, hopefully. If any man harbors hatred for another here, seek forgiveness now. If others have called names, then ask for forgiveness, and apologize. And be a man about apologizing, there is no need to tie it and faults to anyone other than self.

If you have been wrong, just simply admit it. The admitting of it shows your Christianity and manhood/womanhood. Stubborness shows the opposite.

Maybe it's a good day to get the burden of this weight off of our shoulders.

 

I don't consider myself an Arminian, but I do believe Arminianism is closer to the truth than Calvinism. Although I disagree that a person can lose their salvation, like Arminianism, at least they understand that God has given man free choice to decide whether or not to respond to the Gospel.

 

Where on God's green earth did you come up with this sort of nonesense?

 

Perhaps you could tell us where you stand. That would be helpful. We're reduced to knowing you by what you post.

If you disavow some theological positions that are common, then it is up to you to make clear your own position instead of attacking the positions of others. What you are doing in this thread is not helpful at all, and violates any number of the commands of Christ concerning love, forgiveness, unity, speaking the truth, etc.

 

Actually, what has probably kicked Winman off is my INSISTENCE that he deal with Article IV of Arminian theology where it states clearly that God's grace precedes faith, even for Arminians.

When pressed, and needing to actually defend one's own theology, either one can or one can't, and in this case it is patently evident that Winman cannot defend what he believes, so he goes on the most horrific attack I've seen to date on this board.

You join his efforts...

Let's stop tossing invectives and pejoratives at each other and examine the arguments instead. Either one can defend their theology or they cannot. If they cannot perhaps their theology is the problem. IF their theology leads to attacking others who are Christian, then their theology has led them FAR astray from God's Word and God's plan -- directly into the camp of the enemy of God, who is called in Scripture "the accuser of the brethren."

 

Pot? Kettle?

I join his efforts? Uh, not really.

Put to practice what you do yourself and in turn condemn others for. I have done nothing different than what you have done.

Ascribing his common practice is not wrong. You've done exactly the same. Somehow my doing what you have done is wrong. Shucks. :tear:

Thus, I wrote this: