Arminian vs Reformed

[mondar]

Q&A with Roger Olson : AGTV

Here is an interesting interview with an Arminian Theologian. It is about the "young, restless, and Reformed" crowd. Of course his theology is not where I am, but I appreciated this guys honest, forthright, yet not nasty answers.

Edit----> For those who believe in Eternal Security, notice at about minute 53, how the speaker thinks of you as Arminian. Also notice the idea of the speaker that much of the theology in the USA is "Folk religion" or semi-Pelagian.

 

[Sissy]

Thanks, sounds interesting.
I'm going to take time to listen to it now.

 

[craigmn3]

The only people I know who use the word Arminian are Calvinists.

I hope you are not that.

 

[Sissy]

Mondar,

Finished watching it.
Liked it.
Thanks!



Graigmn3,

I don't mind the label of Arminian.
My theological viewpoint of the bible is more in tune with Arminius than Calvin.
So, while I do not mind being labeled an Arminian, I would cringe at being labeled a Calvinist.

 

[Oats]

there is nothing wrong with calvinism

 

[bishop]

Are you guys talking about the whole theologies of Calvin and Arminius or just their beliefs about soteriology?

 

[Tailgunner]

I watched this interview, and enjoyed it. I greatly respect his knowledge and forthrightness, but he didn't change my mind. I still hold to the Reformed view, and don't mind being called a Calvinist. I accept the five points of TULIP as Biblically sound.

TG

 

[Scotth1960]

there is nothing wrong with calvinism

Dear Oats, Some Calvinists think that if you are not a Calvinist, then you are an Arminian or a semi-Pelagian. I am neither a semi-Pelagian nor an Arminian. Nor am I a "Calvinist". Calvin had people murdered who disagreed with him. Hardly a Christian thing to be predestined to do. God predestines no one to sin. Calvin committed a lot of sins in the name of Reformed theology. Yes, there is something wrong with Calvinism. It denies free will and human responsibility, and makes God the author of sin and of evil. It neglects or denies 2 Peter 3:9. It states that it believes some persons are "predestined to hell" (sic), and the Bible does not say that. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS Yes God is Sovereign. But Calvinism is false.

 

[Free]

1Co 1:12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Perhaps Paul should have mentioned Calvin as well.....

 

[Eyezup]

Dear Oats, Some Calvinists think that if you are not a Calvinist, then you are an Arminian or a semi-Pelagian. I am neither a semi-Pelagian nor an Arminian. Nor am I a "Calvinist". Calvin had people murdered who disagreed with him. Hardly a Christian thing to be predestined to do. God predestines no one to sin. Calvin committed a lot of sins in the name of Reformed theology. Yes, there is something wrong with Calvinism. It denies free will and human responsibility, and makes God the author of sin and of evil. It neglects or denies 2 Peter 3:9. It states that it believes some persons are "predestined to hell" (sic), and the Bible does not say that. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS Yes God is Sovereign. But Calvinism is false.

Just curious...who is the "you" in 2 Peter 3:9? I think another read of that chapter will definitely open your understanding to whom Peter is addressing.

You are correct in stating that God predestines no one to sin. Man has got that department handled. Did God not know that Moses would kill that Egyptian? Did God not know that King David would commit adultry and have the husband killed? The point I'm making is this...don't be so quick to disparage someone like Calvin if in fact he is one of God's children. I know that God loved Moses as well as King David. Who knows, He may have even loved Calvin.

You have to realize that even as a Christian you still possess a sinful nature. If you have children, then you know what I'm talking about. I don't have to coerce them into doing that which is sinful. We sin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, after reading what you've written, I'm led to believe that God has provided a means and a way for salvation and has left the ultimate decision up to man to decide ones destiny?

Does this mean that God knew who would choose Him because He saw everyones decision by taking a sneek peek into the future? If yes...then God without "all knowledge" correct? Meaning, He had to obtain knowledge of something.

There is soooooo much that can be said about God intervening in human affairs regardless of their wills. Let's see who comes to mind....Moses. He didn't want to go to Egypt, but, God said that he was going anyways. Jonah didn't want to go and preach to a sinful people, but, God made him go anyways.

Joseph was sold into slavery by an evil act of his brothers, but, God meant it for good. Jeremiah was said to be consecrated in the womb (Jer 1:5); Paul the Apostle was set apart, even from his mother's womb (Gal 1:15) and did some pretty horrible things to Christians. God changed all of that on the road to Damascus when Paul had it in his will to persecute more Christians. Ultimately, God's will was done. It was done in all of these examples and many many others. God's will is first (Rom 9:16 *read entire chapter).

I'm sure these things have been said many times over and throughout the centuries. I just wanted to really understand why you sound so angry. God is not the author of sin even if He so chooses to use man's sin to bring about His will. The ultimate example of this is the cruxifiction of His own Son. This terrible thing had to take place in order to appease His wrath toward sin (God is just in punishing sin and not just excusing it), as well as, fulfilling our obligation to living out a perfect life (which we didn't do, but, Jesus did).

Payment for sin and a right standing before God the Father. All because of Jesus! If Jesus death was an appeasement for all sin, then, all are in. It says that The Fathers wrath is satisfied (Isa 53:11). No need for more judgement if this was for every human being. Judgement was already accomplished a little over 2000yrs ago if this is the case.

Anyways, God Bless and I hope that you would really challenge your understanding of the scriptures and see how it truly compliments itself. If you don't want to be labeled, then, that's cool too. Just seek to know Gods Truth.

Peace

 

[mondar]

Are you guys talking about the whole theologies of Calvin and Arminius or just their beliefs about soteriology?

bishop, I started the thread an put a link to someone who gave a lecture on his view of the Calvinist/Arminian debate. My perspective is that I am agreement with all 5 points of TULIP. While I have a different view then the Arminian speaker, I felt great admiration for the mans integrity, honesty, and forthrightness. I found what the guy said refreshing and stimulating even if I disagreed with him.

I was not looking to make yet another Calvinist vs Arminian thread (there are plenty of them already). I just wanted people to respond to the link and say what they think.

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

Finished watching it.
Liked it.
Thanks!



Graigmn3,

I don't mind the label of Arminian.
My theological viewpoint of the bible is more in tune with Arminius than Calvin.
So, while I do not mind being labeled an Arminian, I would cringe at being labeled a Calvinist.

My hat is off to you sissy. While I hold to the doctrines of Grace, I can definitely appreciate your integrity and forthrightness in what you say. Thank you.

 

[Peregrine]

Dear Oats, Some Calvinists think that if you are not a Calvinist, then you are an Arminian or a semi-Pelagian. I am neither a semi-Pelagian nor an Arminian. Nor am I a "Calvinist". Calvin had people murdered who disagreed with him. Hardly a Christian thing to be predestined to do. God predestines no one to sin. Calvin committed a lot of sins in the name of Reformed theology. Yes, there is something wrong with Calvinism. It denies free will and human responsibility, and makes God the author of sin and of evil. It neglects or denies 2 Peter 3:9. It states that it believes some persons are "predestined to hell" (sic), and the Bible does not say that. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS Yes God is Sovereign. But Calvinism is false.

Calvinism is false where it disagrees with scripture. Calvinism is not about the life of Calvin, though named for him. David comes to mind as another man that had a man murdered specifically, and also cost the lives of thousands for his own. Just goes to show you that the greatest men are not great because of themselves, but because God choses to use them.

I humbly submit that your use of 2 peter 3:9 is an abuse of the passage and completely devoid of reading even the verse before it. Peter is very very clearly addressing "where is the promise of his coming", in other words, why has the Lord not returned yet? Peter argues, among other things, the reason why is that He has not returned yet because there are still some of his elect to be saved. Christ does not want ANY of his chosen ones to perish, but instead that each of them come to repentance.

Free will is a very misguided notion. It is impossible. Not just theologically impossible, but physically and philosophically impossible. Pure free will does not and cannot ever exist in any way shape and form. We live in a "free" country. Men are free. Yet we are not. Why? Because so long as anything outside of us exists, we cannot be. For in order for us to be totally purely free we must infringe on something else, or else something else infringe on us. Your problems with free will are that God's denying of it would infringe on you. You are not free to stand wherever you want, so you are not free physically. You cannot stand in the middle of the wall of a house, it is impossible. You cannot stand 5 feet in the air on nothing. You are bound by gravity. You cannot murder someone in this country for then you have taken THEIR freedom. In order for you to be totally and purely free, everything else must then be bound by you. They must then have limited freedom. So it is with God. In order for you to have pure free will, God must be bound. You must have say where He does not. In order for God to have total and pure freedom, you must be bound. He must have say where you do not.

It is the later that is true, God has say where we do not. For you to say 'I have total free will and it is my choice' is to deny God the ability to say 'I want to chose", and even "I want to give you a choice" and a myriad of other ways you have attempted to have him bound. For you to say you have total free will is to say that God does not, and that is impossible, despite that we wish it would be, for our own sinful desires to be greater than God.

 

[Scotth1960]

Q&A with Roger Olson : AGTV

Here is an interesting interview with an Arminian Theologian. It is about the "young, restless, and Reformed" crowd. Of course his theology is not where I am, but I appreciated this guys honest, forthright, yet not nasty answers.

Edit----> For those who believe in Eternal Security, notice at about minute 53, how the speaker thinks of you as Arminian. Also notice the idea of the speaker that much of the theology in the USA is "Folk religion" or semi-Pelagian.

Friends, The Bible is neither Reformed nor Arminian. Those are man-made traditions, and not the Word of God. The Bible is from the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, which has not subscribed in her true form to the later papal pretensions. History speaks for itself on the things down in the name of papal power and supremacy, and the popes of Rome are producers of schisms. Merely submitting to a man in Rome doesn't guarantee salvation for anyone, and merely failing to be a papist doesn't condemn anyone. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[mondar]

Friends, The Bible is neither Reformed nor Arminian. Those are man-made traditions, and not the Word of God. The Bible is from the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, which has not subscribed in her true form to the later papal pretensions. History speaks for itself on the things down in the name of papal power and supremacy, and the popes of Rome are producers of schisms. Merely submitting to a man in Rome doesn't guarantee salvation for anyone, and merely failing to be a papist doesn't condemn anyone. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Tradition is most dangerous in those who are not aware how deep their tradition runs. Anyone claiming to reinvent the wheel is obviously so deep in their own tradition that they are not capable of distinguishing the difference between their own tradition and scripture. Such attitudes are always a disappointment.

For this reason I can admire the honesty and integrity of the comments made by the man in the video I posted in the OP. I would happily admit that I have much more in common with the person in the lecture in the link in the OP then I would with one who thinks he is reinventing the wheel. I most likely share ties with that man in sola scriptura, sola fide, and many other very important doctrines. We differ on the nature and extent of God's prevenient grace, but agree on so much more. More then this, I appreciate the man in the link not obscuring the issue and muddying the waters. He seems to be willing to represent Calvinism as accurately as he can. That is something I find so rare in many of those so deep into their traditions that they do not know the difference between their traditions and scripture.

 

[Scotth1960]

Tradition is most dangerous in those who are not aware how deep their tradition runs. Anyone claiming to reinvent the wheel is obviously so deep in their own tradition that they are not capable of distinguishing the difference between their own tradition and scripture. Such attitudes are always a disappointment.

For this reason I can admire the honesty and integrity of the comments made by the man in the video I posted in the OP. I would happily admit that I have much more in common with the person in the lecture in the link in the OP then I would with one who thinks he is reinventing the wheel. I most likely share ties with that man in sola scriptura, sola fide, and many other very important doctrines. We differ on the nature and extent of God's prevenient grace, but agree on so much more. More then this, I appreciate the man in the link not obscuring the issue and muddying the waters. He seems to be willing to represent Calvinism as accurately as he can. That is something I find so rare in many of those so deep into their traditions that they do not know the difference between their traditions and scripture.

Friends! Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike equally!
People seem generally unaware that even Augustine of Hippo, "Saint Augustine", can have a bad day. Calvin was having a bad day, so he took something he read in Augustine too seriously. He read the NT in the light of Augustine, rather than reading Augustine in the light of the NT. And thus Augustine, FILIOQUE, rather than the NT, JOHN 15:26. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[francisdesales]

Friends! Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike equally!
People seem generally unaware that even Augustine of Hippo, "Saint Augustine", can have a bad day. Calvin was having a bad day, so he took something he read in Augustine too seriously. He read the NT in the light of Augustine, rather than reading Augustine in the light of the NT. And thus Augustine, FILIOQUE, rather than the NT, JOHN 15:26. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

Augustine didn't have the "bad day", brother, Calvin is the one with the problem, taking bits and pieces of Augustine and ignoring the parts he didn't like.

And the idea behind Filioque is expressed before Augustine by Eastern Fathers. The problem is that the Byzantines didn't like Rome laying their ancient claims upon Bulgaria. After that, just looking for excuses...

 

[cyberjosh]

I enjoyed the video interview Mondar. Thanks for sharing it! I love it when someone really knows how to defend and explain what they believe from a Scriptural standpoint, regardless of the stance. He at least showed some of the common points of agreement between the two positions. This bit of practical application of theology was refreshing to watch. I may watch it a second time.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Eventide]

Here's a simple question which you will rarely hear a Calvinist answer..

If God chose YOU, then why does He tell you that if you shall seek to save YOUR LIFE that you shall lose it, and that if you lose your life for HIM that you shall save it ?

Here's another;

How can election be Unconditional when God chooses each and every one IN CHRIST ?

 

[Eyezup]

Here's a simple question which you will rarely hear a Calvinist answer..

If God chose YOU, then why does He tell you that if you shall seek to save YOUR LIFE that you shall lose it, and that if you lose your life for HIM that you shall save it ?

Here's another;

How can election be Unconditional when God chooses each and every one IN CHRIST ?

Both of these questions are not as difficult as you have stated. What are some of the responses you've received from Calvanist?