Who Would be Seen As the Arminian Theologian To Calvin?

Luke.. I'll keep it simple for ya. .. K..

You don't have the foggiest clue about what constitutes a Pel and semi-Pel view and you know even less about what Arminians and Non-Cals believe. You are woefully inept for this discussion and as such I'll step aside till you learn more on this.

You keep saying 'you people believe' but in fact you haven't a clue. You are trying to tell us what we believe and you end up looking and acting like Dave Hunt. There is FAR more to what we hold than you 'imagine' and thus far more distinction (a complete distinction actually) from Semi-Pelagianism than you dream of. In fact other Reformed authors note this, and others on this very board. The problem that keeps putting such idiocy like this in the front is the the disdain and/or hatred that continues to perpetuate the lies upon both sides.

You will have to come to terms with the biblical FACT (and one that Calvinism admits) that God saves no one apart from man allowing God to do so through faith and that by your own definition of monergism, Calvinism falls into synergism. The very fact that God must wait upon man is the essence of synergism and as such Calvinism is PURELY synergistic. If God can not save man apart from man doing 'anything' (including believe) then salvation is cooperative by your definition. IF God does it ALL regarding salvation, then He will save man apart from faith as He needs nothing from man, and all the wheedling in the and parsing, and semantics can not change that.

Thus you must ask:
Why must God change my nature - so I will believe and He can save me
Why must my desires be changed - So I will believe and He can saved me
Why must I be enlightened - So I will believe and He can save me
Why must I be effectually called - So I will believe and He can save me
Why must I be sanctified - So I will believe and He can save me

There is NO question that even in Calvinism there is absolute cooperation concerning mans eternal salvation. Without man believing God will not and indeed can not save him.

Only the Primitive Baptists have a monergistic soterology in that God eternally saves man irregardless of what man does/believes.

Lastly, LOL.. I love how you placed the qualifier in the part to help shrink the group by stating "True" Calvinists to try to make your assumption more credible. That was funny.

 

Again with your continuation of lies.. Either get it right or shut up on subject but either way.. stop the trash you keep setting out

 

Well you believe that if it makes you feel better.

Don't let these pesky things called FACTS get in your way.

Like for example- I was RAISED a Free Will Baptist and attended a Free Will Baptist College which is a TRULY Arminian institution.

I was one semester shy of my degree there where I took Systematic theology, and Bible Doctrines, etc... AT AN ARMINIAN COLLEGE under one the most respected Free Will Baptist theologians in the denomination.

But those are just facts. I'm sure you have far greater ARMINIAN training than I have.

Share it with us all so you can prove it.

Who are "we"?

Who are you people?

Nobody has written about what you believe. Nobody knows. Not even yourselves.

Please point me to the systematic theology that you ascribe to so I can SEE how you people are different from semi-pelagians.

That is the easiest way to clear up this little controversy.

BECAUSE MILLIONS of us, many of whom are WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY more educated than you will EVER be, think you guys are semi-pelagians.

Point us to your theology so you can clear this great big conspiracy up.

See. You don't know anything about Armininianism OR Calvinism.

See if you can get any Calvinist on EARTH to ascribe to this silly notion that we believe that "man ALLOWS God to save him" while man is unregenerate.

Allan, I know you have fully convinced yourself and some others who don't know any more than you do about it have made helped you convince yourself that you know what you are talking about- but you don't.

Sorry.

What nonsense.

Run this by ANY educated Calvinist and see if he will stamp it with his approval.

God gives the man faith to believe. So God is doing it all. That is Calvinism- but more than that- it is BIBLE, Allan.

But thanks for playing.

Nope. None of those are accurate. You just made all of that stuff up.

Nope. Not if God is the one bringing to pass everything that the man is doing throughout the whole process.

Nope.

Did you ever tell me about your education that you kept touting earlier.

If you spent money on that and this post represents what you got out of it- you are due a refund.

Any Calvinist will tell you the same. You don't know beans about it.

And I am an educated Arminian converted to Calvnism - and I can tell you, you don't know beans about Arminianism either.

And by the way, I don't say that about everybody. Skandelon, for example, knows Arminianism. You'd do well to let him enlighten you.

 

It's not a lie which is established very clearly by you ONLY CALLING it a lie without proving it.

No decent human being would call someone a liar without PROVING where they lied.

I assume you are a decent human being so that proves that you CAN'T.

Because I am telling the truth.

But a very classy post you made there...

 

No.. the facts are what I gave not you declaration of ... they're close to being the same thing.

Fact.. neither Pel's nor Semi-Pel's hold to total depravity/original sin
Fact.. both views believe that man is the initiator of man's salvation
Fact.. both hold to a works/reward based salvation
Fact.. Semi-Pels hold that man can come to God without aid but God has to help him to finish
Fact.. it is the injured will that still allows man to come to God apart from divine aid.
Fact.. the cooperation between man and God speaks specifically to their WORKS salvation
Fact.. both hold to a works based salvation.. ie, faith is not enough

And that is just for starters.. your accusation that Arminianism is even similar goes beyond far fetch to being non-existent, IF one understands Arminianism.

Well Great! Then you should know better shouldn't you.

Prove what? Education itself was not in question. My points regarding education is that those who claim to be educated should be educated ENOUGH to know that stuff such as this is false, and thus is nothing short of bearing false witness. Again, that regards those who claim to be educated.

Additionally, I wasn't raised, reared, or educated Arminian but I do know enough about it to successfully debate with them and they have never accused me of not knowing what Arminian Theology entails, just as on here (except for you) have I been successfully accused of not understanding Reformed theology but have in fact been praised quite often by my reformed brethren FOR knowing and understanding their views.

My education however, if it will make you feel better, is from Tennessee Temple University (Independent Baptist) and SouthEastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist).

Why not talk to me and find out if what we believe is or isn't different. Remember, YOU are the claiming no one knows what we believe, so you have no grounds with which to make an reasonable or valid accusation.

No need. I can just point you to what they are known to believe historically and any person with a decent grasp of comprehension can tell you they are not the same. THAT clears up the controversy and establishes the conspiracy resides solely in the fact many Cals only regurgitate this stuff and never actually study it for themselves to be debate the real issues. As I said, it makes you look like the Dave Hunt of Calvinism.

I noticed you wont speak to what I actually wrote but added to it with placing in the term - unregenerate. Nice try.

Simple question all we need is a YES or NO:
Will God save a man apart from that man 'first' believing?

If not, does not their eternal salvation hinge upon that person believing (irregardless of if God gives it to them or not) in Christ.

IOW - Is not salvation dependent upon him believing? That is called COOPERATION - God does something and man as well.

Calvinism and Arminianism agree that - No man comes to faith apart from God's working and no man is saved by God apart from excersizing willing/freely his faith. Thus man is involved in the salvation process in both systems and in both systems man is not the reason he is saved. He can not save himself, nor does he trade his faith for salvation but in fact through faith believes God and cries out for God to be merciful and God choose to save him by His grace.

If man had no involvement in his salvation then you would have monergism but the fact is even in Calvinism/Reformed theology man is involved (no matter how slight) and that his willing involvement is absolutely necessary in order for God to save him. Therefore, both are synergistic.

Now if faith is not work (which scripture says it is not) then it can not equate to the cooperation which Pels and semi-Pes hold to. God helping man out as a reward for pursuit.. as exemplified in the words definition:

Now remember, I only using the definition Cals like to use when stating Arminians "cooperate" with God, when in fact the cooperation of their theology is the same as what Cals state. God can not save apart from man placing faith/believing in Christ.

Even you have said the same thing.. God gives man faith, God changes his nature ..all for what purpose Luke - so that man will believe and God save him.

Ok. Why does God regenerate a man, place in him a new nature, and give him faith.. What is the purpose?

Irregardless.. Can or better WILL God save the man apart from him allowing God to do so?

So are you contending that God even believes FOR or on behalf of the man as well?

Again, you keep adding to my words since I NEVER spoke about 'my' education but that if one is supposed to be educated he/she should know better than to say such silly nonsensical things

There is not a Calvinist worth his salt who will tell you that God eternally saves a man apart from faith. There is no Calvinist worth his salt or name who contends that man does nothing.

So I think I take some rice with my beans, thank you.

I bet I can surprise you.

You might want to ask him

 

Exactly, and I have shown it, so it remains as I said.
Truth is not just because you say it is so nor because of your postulations.

It is easy to prove Semi-Pel is not akin to Arminianism as they are diametrically opposed to one another. Cal and Arminianism are much closer in kinship than they are!

 

Excuse me, but I can't recall that I've ever issued you a warning. And those I have issued were reported to me by other members and were clearly personal attacks, not opinions on theology/doctrine as presented by Dr. Bob.

If you have an issue with an edit/warning I've made you have every right to report it to an Admin for review, but it is against the rules to handle it in this manner.

 

Roger Olson is revising his theology book so I would look for that, December I think, maybe February.

 

:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

The unnecessary bifurcation of Christian theology on this board is the single most frustrating thing I've experienced since joining.

Given that there are more theological views than Calvinism or Arminianism one might suggest there are useful theologians representing other camps too.

 

Nope. Most of these are NOT facts and the ones that are identify what you guys believe to a tee.

Which you do not, obviously.

So you are not going to share your level of education even though you kept questioning the education of others?

Wow.

Not be informed people you have not- at least not along these lines of conversation.

You are obviously not debating educated Arminians if this is the case.

And MOST, and I mean MOST Calvinists see you guys as semi-pelagians or VERY close. So if you have Calvinists saying otherwise, they are not informed or not being fully honest.

All we have to go on is scattered and inconsistent remarks we read here on baptistboard.

Your remarks indicate that you are practically semi-pelagian.

Do you think that Calvinists tend to be less studied than you nameless guys???

That's a joke, right??

There is no salvatioin apart from faith. But God gives faith to believe. This is monergism.

Ding, ding!!

Ahhhh... and you started out so well too.

No it is not. You Arminians or whatever in the world you call yourselves believe that faith is something that they can CHOOSE in their unregenerate state to exercise.

We CALVINISTS believe that faith is something God gives to the one he regenerates and directly CAUSES him to exercise it (irresistable grace).

In that scheme God is doing all of the DOING.

 

Luke,

You are fighting a losing battle if you are going to attempt to discredit Allan's scholarship. Debate his views all you want, but to attack his knowledge of the subject matter is a battle you will certainly lose. Any honest and objective individual who knows Allan or who has discussed theology with him for any length of time knows he is very well read on the subject and very intelligent.

I would bet my bottom dollar that in a standardized test regarding the different theological views and what they each espouse, Allan would out score you by at least double. I'm not just saying that because I disagree with your views either. I've debated with Allan on several points, some of which I still wish he would take the time to complete, so we don't always see eye to eye. But, I have no doubt to his knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

It would behove you to move past the tired old "nameless theology" and "you don't know what you or I believe" accusations and actually address the points of contention between the two of you. I know I would be much more engaged and entertained. Oh, and he is far from being semi-pelagian...the fact that you accuse him of that is quite humorous considering the subject of my discussions with him over the last few months.

 

Allan wrote:

Your first sentence is extremely disappointing. This type of ad hominem is just completely uncalled for and makes one seem less engaged and thoughtful than they may truly be.

It's trumped by the last sentence for sheer irresponsible negligence in terms of charity and reason. Dr. Bob is a wonderful man and a pastor/scholar. I wish you would give thought to what you have written. I honestly think you would regret what this after a bit of reflection.

Allan, your posts often seem to provide a lot of insight. However, you're losing credibility with your rancor. I wish you'd give thought to how you're writing and what you're writing.

Earth Wind & Fire wrote:

As was pointed out, this was extremely uncalled for. You're accusing a brother of a bias that I simply don't think exists. If you have proof, show it. I'm an Administrator and I'd be glad to see it. Otherwise, stay on topic and avoid this kind of stuff.

Go2Church wrote:

Interesting. Which book is he revising? (by the way, you are actually making a substantive contribution to this discussion. You know that's not allowed, right? :laugh

 

Tom, do you agree with Dr. Bob that arminianism and pelagianism go hand in hand?

 

Sure he does as do most Calvinists.

It is the very thing we CALLED Arminianism in the Synod of Dort.

If any man wants to be considered a serious Calvinist then he will not deny this fact.

None of us are saying that these guys with no nameable theology are IDENTICAL to semi-pelagians. Read this post and you will see I BEGAN my part of the conversation pointing this out.

But the VAST majority of Calvinists agree that Arminianism is VERY SIMILAR to semi-pelagianism.

 

I'd take that challenge.

And furthermore, if Allan thinks that Calvinists have not historically considered Arminianism to be semi-pelagianism, his education that he keeps touting and that you have joined in with him touting is not that credible.

Not if THAT is what he learned in said education.

 

Tom....that was meant to be a joke.....I have the greatest respect for Dr Bob & I believe he knows it.

 

I think that is an assumption. It may be that Dr. Bob thinks that, but he also may not have meant that. I'd prefer to let him speak for himself.

Kind of like I'd prefer to let me speak for myself, despite Luke's intentions :laugh:

If you would like to know my thoughts regarding whether or not Arminianism and Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism are compatible, I'll address that. Or if you prefer I delve into a much deeper theological subject, we can talk about how frustrating my beloved Cincinnati Reds are. :laugh:

 

I was referring to the insinuation against Skandelon. If that was a joke, okay. Maybe I overlooked the smiley or what not. My apologies if you intended it as a joke and I mistook it for an insult.

 

Maybe you should tell that to Reformed scholars such has John Hendryx who wrote:

So, while there may be some common elements with Arminians and Semi-Pelagians, there are important biblical distinctions that would only be intentionally ignored by someone with an agenda...(i.e. demonizing, labeling and blindly dismissing a valid theological system).

Equating the two is tantamount to equating all Calvinists with anti-evangelistic hyperists. Instead, why don't we both engage with the actual views being proposed rather than employing these less than honest labeling tactics.

 

Skandelon,
Could you cite that Hendryx quote? If it's the same one of Monergism.com fame, I'm sure it came from that site which has about six trillion articles :laugh: