What nationality are you?

Sorry, Dale.. I feel I am both.
One day when I have time, I'll explain how I believe to you...

I can see theologically how God is Sovereign, and how man has complete free will.

 

Allan, I disagree with this. Traditional Arminianism is closer to a OSAS view than what you portray here. For instance, traditional Free Will Baptist theology (which is very much in line with traditional Arminian theology) teaches that one can forfeit their salvation, but this does not happen on a whim or by one sin. They believe it is an intentional giving away of one's salvation - i.e., "forfeiting it" not "losing it."

That said, I do realize there are some out there that take a more extreme view like the one you portray. I would classify these as Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.

 

Holding to a general idea of the sovereignty of God does not make one a Calvinist. Really, it comes down to the 5 points - which ones do you think are Biblical and which ones do you reject?

Also, man having "complete free will" isn't even Arminian - that's more of a Pelagian idea. Arminians at least recognize that man is grossly affected by sin (and isn't all that "free") and that his heart needs opened before being able to respond to the Gospel.

 

It seems to be on the increase with particular groups of people as biblical literacy in on the decrease. So it makes it easier for them to deceive people.

 

Brother that is the 'Weslyian' view which is based somewhat loosely on Arminianism.
Notice please the 5th article of the Remonstrance:

Notice they can fall away (loose their salvation through), become deviod of grace, loosing a good conscience through 'negligence'.
Negligence:
1. guilty of or characterized by neglect, as of duty: negligent officials.
2. lazily careless; offhand: a negligent wave of his manicured hand.


Thus the Arminian view is that a person can loose their salvation if they are not constantly vigilent about their walk and christian duty, because of negligence in their walk and christian duty can lead them to fall away through sin.

 

Many Calvinists don't quite understand the variation of the term free-will. One view is libertarian which is Pelagain and Semi. This was the view in mind when M. Luther wrote his book on bondage of the will.

The other is also free-will but is not so 'free' so to speak. (I call this limited-will typically so as not to confuse it with libertarian).

The limited will (also called free-will) view says that man only has the complete freedom of choice within the choices God places before him. Where as the libertarian view states man does what he wants and goes where he wants and God has no say in the matter.

The second view states that man can only move or do with the choice God sets before him. Thus this view is limited free-will completely dependent upon God and His plan.

 

I'm a Christian. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I'm not an Arminian, I'm not a Southern Baptist. I'm a born again Christian.

 

I consider it an honor to be called a Calvinist. I didn't become a Calvinist by studying Calvin. I became a Calvinist by studying the writings of Paul. What was later called Calvinism is the Gospel that Paul preached.

That being said, I can't see another teaching as anything but another gospel.

I'm also 100% red-blooded American.

 

I doubt that statement Aaron, and I am not even an American.
Which one of the Indian tribes are you from? Navajo, Cherokee, Iroquois, Mohawk, Cree, etc. From which one are you "full blooded"? They are the "100% red-blooded Americans." Examine your heritage. The rest of us are all just immigrants.

 

I am unable to find in the Bible that calvinism is the gospel of Jesus Christ in which men are saved. Could you post those verses?

 

Is John 3:16 the gospel?
If so, how it is Calvinism?

 

That is inconsistent with what was said earlier:

 

Carnality still exists among Christians today. Bickering back and forth in the name of men. I am of Christ, and Christ is of God. I cannot see room for John Calvin nor Jacobus Arminius.

 

I see.

Well, you and I have been around for a while now, webbie.

Let me ask you.

Can you honestly say this only of those of the Calvinist persuasion ?

Luv ya, brother.

Not trying to pick a fight.

 

Once again...

:BangHead: ...I guess you can keep repeating that LFW is Peligan or semi if you like...but I will just atribute it to the underlined above and hope your repeating of this statement is just a misunderstanding on your part.

 

Is Calvinism the Gospel? Let's hear C.H. Spurgeon's comments:

"Calvinism is the gospel"

"I do not ask whether you believe Calvinism. It is possible you may not. But I believe you will before you enter heaven. I am persuaded that as God may have washed your hearts, he will wash your brains before you enter heaven."

"Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth."

"John Calvin propounded truth more clearly than any other man who ever breathed, knew more of Scripture, and explained it more clearly."

"I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God."

"We hold and assert again and again that the truth which Calvin preached was the very truth which the apostle Paul had long before written in his inspired epistles, and which is most clearly revealed in the discourses of our blessed Lord himself."

"I love the pure doctrine of unadulterated Calvinism."

These are just some of the many, many quotes of one of the greatest - if not the greatest Baptist preacher in history. Seems like his calvinism was no hindrance to his ministry!

 

Really, I don't remember 'ever' reading such, much less from you.

Don't know who wrote that but it is pretty much just someone taking something simple and trying to make it into something .. it shouldn't be I think I get what whoever it is is trying say but man, they take a 10 mile detour.

My main point is that very few people are 'libertarian' in their doctrinal understanding of the will of man. Most Arminians and non-cals fall into this catagory on the whole, while there might be some within those groups they do not represent the whole.

Libertarian is word that carries with it a lot of bagage both for what it means and has been 'attributed' to mean. Primarily it's usage refers a non-determinist, non-compatablist position (free from Gods specific or general direction in the lives of men). The word reflects absolute freedom from God with respect to any all choices and actions of man. Thus even mans desire to know God/seek after God orginates from within himself without any contributing factors and or direct actions from God (this includes grace). This is seen more accurately by the defintion that CARM give us:

Libertarinism holds to no deterministic aspect. Arminians and Wesleyian Arminians typically do and should be known more properly as Compatablist Free-will and not Libertarians.

The major problem is that most Calvinistics tend to 'lump' people into catagories into which those groups don't belong. For example libertarian free-will is almost always attributed to the Arminian position as a whole. However no Arminian I have found will agree with the defintion above even though they are accused of such a position UNLESS they hold to the idea that God does not know the number of the elect. Which as far as I can tell isn't many. Arminians typically don't hold a person is 'equally able' - independant of pressures or constraintes from 'internal', but that he is enabled to choose between options. The fact is with Arminianists the ability to choose need not be equal, simply that there be a genuine abilty to possible options.

Therefore the typical Arminians actual position is more accurately understood/known as a compatablist free-will position and not their typically labeled libertarian free-will. And the above definition is why 'libertarian' is doctrinally equated with Pelaganism and Semi-Pelagainism since niether of these hold to any form of determism and therefore deny God's influence or direction. The only thing the typical Arminian position and libertarian position share philosophically is that of being 'able' or better 'enabled' and thus the usage of the word 'free' with respect to mans will.

And so this is why the usage of 'free-will' is preferred to libertarian in discussions and debates because the logical implications of what the term 'libertarian' sets forth and why the Arminians position is more accurately known and or seen as the Comptablist Free-will position.

Freewill - simply mean enabled to choose, not that a person is free from internal or external forces in choosing.