Who are the Arminians?

NON-CAL is a meaningless label.

NON-ANYTHING is a meaningless label.

It doesn't say a single thing about what a person IS. It only says what they are not.

I am a non-cat. Does that tell you what I am? No. Of course not.

It is meaningless to say that I am a non-cat.

If I am to label myself in ANY meaningful way I must tell you not what I am not- but what I AM.

Muslims are NON-CALS.
Atheists are NON-CALS.
Satan Worshipers are NON-CALS.
Mormons are NON-CALS.
Jehovah's Witnesses are NON-CALS.

The label non-cal is as useless as the label "non-lizard."

Wrong. Arminianism does not necessitate a belief in the ability to lose salvation.

I saw where some others point this out so I will not bother here.

This is why I call these people who claim no nameable theology- ARMINIANS.

They believe almost IDENTICALLY what Jacobus Arminius believed.

He himSELF was not settled on the matter of security!

No more so than about 90 percent of IFBers.

Since Arminus did not teach that men could lose their salvation and he believed almost EXACTLY like most IFBers then the Free Wills (I used to be one) are no more Arminian than the IFB.

 

This is the problem Mandy.

Those who are do not know they are- like you probably.

Others do not want to admit it.

But, other than the security issue which Arminius was NOT settled on, I can see no difference between what you guys believe and what Arminius taught.

Most of you will adhere to substitutionary atonement (a reformed tenet) but it will not fit with your other Arminian beliefs.

 

Actually you really don't need to Luke. You tend to those who are under your leadership and if someone comes into in "preaching another gospel" then you should "in charity" confront them. There is no scriptural mandate to have an "identifiable" theology. You should, when presented with the opportunity, and in great care, concern and love, share with the Mormon, JW, Muslim etc, share with them the REAL God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You should NOT pontificate on how ridiculous and under educated you might think them to be.

1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

Neither is there a Scriptural mandate to call one's self a Baptist.

Do you see any value in calling one's self a Baptist?

As a matter of fact there is no Scriptural mandate to call one's self a Christian.

Do you call yourself a Christian?
Why?

I do not see how this is relevant to this discussion.

 

And so you agree that there is no scriptural mandate for an identifiable theology. Thank you.

 

There is a sort of mandate for NOT having an identifiable theology when a man's name is attached to it (even an apostle's).

1 Corinthians 3

4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.​

HankD​

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

And you ignore that there is value in it.

And if there is good in it then it ought to be done by those who know it is good. For to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not- it is sin.

If it is GOOD to call one's self a Christian and one knows it to be good for good reasons (this modern world is full of non-Christians and we ought to declare proudly that we are Christians in such a world) and that person refuses to do it- to that person it is sin.

So if a person knows in this current age RIDDLED with heresy on every hand that he ought to stand out from heretics and cults of every kind and so ought to distinguish himself from those "Christians" who are heretics- he ought to call his theology by some name which causes it to be distinguished from those heresies- if he does not- could it be a sin?

Hmmmmm....

 

Could we not agree then that in Calvinism there is an insistance that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia), but the only thing that can replace "salvation by grace alone" is ..... "salvation by grace PLUS Human Effort" isn't that a more appropriate definition & something that you encourage?

Hmmmmmmm

 

In other words your like Jello (hard to nail down). Personally Im just going to start calling you " + Human Effort" or "+HE" .....maybe I can call you Jello so which do you prefer?

 

Or is it that we Calvinists are afraid that the movement toward aRMINISM AND/OR +HE is a run in the direction of liberalism and ultimately atheism......Hmmmmmmm..... wonder if this has political ramifications.....hmmmmmm.... Will have to put my Sociologist hat on

 

I am a Born Again, Blood Washed (in that order btw!), Bible Believing, Orthodox, Five Solas ascribing, Calvinist, Baptist, Son and Slave and Believer in the LORD Jesus Christ, who is the second person of the godhead Trinity eternally begotten of the Father who from Himself and the Father eternally proceeds the the third person of the godhead- the Holy Spirit.

 

Think that we fitst have to define the theology of being an Arm!

My understanding is that it refers NOT mainly to one being able to l;ose their salvation, but to process God uses to save someone...

cals say that God sends forth unto His elect "irresistible grace", and those will turn to Jesus and become saved, so God foreknows his own by dtermining directly that they will be granted grace sufficient to reddem them, and they WILL get saved
Arms tend to say that God foreknows who will choose by faith Jesus, and that is basis for their election unto salvation. God sends to ALL people prevelient grace, making it possible that ANY might be saved, up to you to accept/reject jesus...

That is my understanding

So falls mainly in process HOW God saves!

 

Do you believe that God has saved people due to his Will, and that he elected them to Eternal Life by sending to them "irresitible grace?"

or that God gives all people the enabled free will to chose jesus or reject Him by themselves?

NOT saying right here one is right/wrong, but which salvation model do YOU hold to?

 

Well you get a Gold Star in my class!:thumbs:

 

Indeed we are to contend for the faith, but not other men.

Why do we need to mention names and pull out a "paint by numbers" theology when we choose to expound upon the Sovereignty of God and/or the Grace of God?

These theologies of men may indeed be (in some part) the product of gifted men (wisdom and understanding) but even Paul was shy about Christians using his name to promote doctrine.

Yes this is a hard saying but personally, I feel we should (as much as possible) detach our views from the monickers of mortal men.

IMO, It is impossible to adhere to every sentence in every systematic theology written by man. By accepting the label (Monicker) of a man we give the impression that we put our stamp of approval on everything written and somewhat the practices of the author.

This has been the testimony of several here at the BB - that they are calvinistic but not in total agreement with everything represented in his writings.

Having said that I feel comfortable saying I am non-calvinistic.

However for the reasons above I am also comfortable saying I am non-arminian.

I have been labeled a "mugwum" which is OK.

Labels such as "Trinitarian" and "Baptist" or "evangelical" are a bit different because they are not directly related to any individual mortal man.

HankD

 

How would you define 'reformed"

I am such in area of sotierology, but definitly NOT in their views on eschatology/creeds/confessions etc!

 

Then do not call yourself a Christian because that is exactly how that title came to us.

And don't call yourself a Baptist.

And don't call yourself a Trinitarian.

We call ourselves by these titles for the EXACT same reason we call ourselves Calvinists or Arminians.

It is a bit superficial and high horsey to ridicule one calling himself a Calvinist when he does not hesitate to call himself a Baptist.

Nobody on earth thinks that anybody on earth ascribes to every single tenet of ANY systematic theology.

I think the above statement is meaningless.

DING DING DING!

See- there it is.

And that is a TRULY meaningless label.

First of all that label makes you as guilty of doing what you condemn in others for accepting labels with names in them as they themselves.

non-CALVINistic has a NAME in it.

The sin would not have been any lesser if the Corinthians had been saying- "I am NOT of Apollos" or "I am NOT of Cephas".

But at least the way the Corinthians did it they were AFFIRMING something.

The non-CAL monicker doesn't even do that much and is still at least as vile.

Non-ANYTHING is a worthless title.

It does not tells us what you ARE- it just tells us what you are NOT.

I am a non-cat. What does that tell you about me? NOTHING. It is meaningless. I could be almost ANYTHING and be a non-cat.

Muslims are non-cals.
Atheists are non-cals.
Jehovah's Witnesses are non-cals.

It is menaingless.

Which still doesn't tell us what you ARE.

No they are not. The fact that there is a NAME in them has nothing to do with it. NO WHERE in the Bible is this condemned.

If you think the passage in Corinthians does it you are wrong. It assaults divisions. Being a BAPTIST as opposed to an ANGLICAN is just as divisive.

Proper Names is irrelevant.