"Reformation Arminianism"

[Biarien]

This is a soteriological system advocated by Robert Picirilli in his book Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism.

From the back, Picirilli says Reformation Arminianism defends:

• total depravity
• the sovereignty of God to control all things for the certain accomplishment of His will
• God's perfect foreknowledge of, and the certainty of, all future events -- including the free, moral choices of human beings
• the penal satisfaction view of the atonement
• salvation by grace through faith and not by works, from beginning to end
• an apostasy that cannot be remedied

Has anyone read this book? Any thoughts on its content?

 

[nobdysfool]

Never heard of it. The points listed sound more Calvinistic than Arminian. I have too many disagreements with Arminians over these points, except for the last one.

 

[Biarien]

Picirilli argues against the forms of "Arminianism" that deny God's sovereignty, God's omniscience, God's omnipotence, etc. But he also argues for an unlimited atonement, a conditional election, and grace that is not irresistible.

I'd be interested hear some people's thoughts on the book, if anyone has read it.

 

[Van]

I have not read it, but it sure seems to be plowing the same ground of many others. For example Arminians can believe in "Total Depravity" they just define it differently. They can believe God accomplishes His will perfectly, yet including in His perfect will our independent choice to trust in Christ. Ditto for the "certainity of all future events" for they will occur exactly as God causes or allows them to occur.

You see in this debate, words have no meaning. Folks craft ways of expressing ideas that sound and seem consistent with Biblical Principles yet once the lipstick is removed, we are back to an accomodation with pagan philosophy.

Does Total Depravity mean all our deeds are as filthy rags or does it mean total spiritual inability to understand any spiritual things including the milk of the gospel? Two utterly different concepts, one biblical, one an invention of men, but both using the same name.

If apostasy cannot be remedied, then God is not all powerful, and we have by such false doctrine nullified the meaning of repentence. For the Bible teaches we both turn away from God and turn back (repent) to God unless God has chosen not to allow (grant) repentence.

 

[nobdysfool]

I have not read it, but it sure seems to be plowing the same ground of many others. For example Arminians can believe in "Total Depravity" they just define it differently. They can believe God accomplishes His will perfectly, yet including in His perfect will our independent choice to trust in Christ. Ditto for the "certainity of all future events" for they will occur exactly as God causes or allows them to occur.

Once again, that all-important touchstone of "autonomous free will"....a failed concept, based on faulty reasoning.

You see in this debate, words have no meaning. Folks craft ways of expressing ideas that sound and seem consistent with Biblical Principles yet once the lipstick is removed, we are back to an accomodation with pagan philosophy.

Actually, words do have meaning in this debate, and the principle of crafting ways of expressing ideas that sound and seem consistent with scripture applies just as much to you as anyone else. Funny how when you speak of others, it is "crafting ways of expressing ideas that sound and seem consistent with scripture (but aren't in your judgment), while when speaking of your own views, it is "this is what these scriptures mean, and what they say". In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is dealing falsely with scripture, but you aren't. Do you not realize that you can be just as wrong as you claim with certainty that others are? You are not exempt.

Does Total Depravity mean all our deeds are as filthy rags or does it mean total spiritual inability to understand any spiritual things including the milk of the gospel? Two utterly different concepts, one biblical, one an invention of men, but both using the same name.

News Flash! It means both.

If apostasy cannot be remedied, then God is not all powerful, and we have by such false doctrine nullified the meaning of repentence. For the Bible teaches we both turn away from God and turn back (repent) to God unless God has chosen not to allow (grant) repentence.

We were born already turned away from God. Yes, it is God who grants repentence. But there is such a thing as apostasy.

 

[Van]

Compatalism is a failed concept based on faulty logic and unbiblical principles. Total Depravity is a well crafted term, that can mean a sound biblical principle but also can mean an invention of men.

Many people differ with my views without ad homeniums. They view scriptures in one way, and I view them another way.

We are conceived in a sinful corrupt unholy state, for by the sin of the one, the many were made sinners. But in this condition people can repent, they can be drawn by God's revelation of lovingkindness, and they can place their devotion and trust in God and His Christ, unless they have been chosen to fulfill another purpose such as Judas.

 

[nobdysfool]

Compatalism is a failed concept based on faulty logic and unbiblical principles. Total Depravity is a well crafted term, that can mean a sound biblical principle but also can mean an invention of men.

Whatever makes you happy, Van.

Many people differ with my views without ad homeniums. They view scriptures in one way, and I view them another way.

And yet you can't seem to express your views without tearing others down, and throwing ad hominems at them when they dare to take issue with your view. You and I don't see eye to eye. Accept it, and move on.

We are conceived in a sinful corrupt unholy state, for by the sin of the one, the many were made sinners. But in this condition people can repent, they can be drawn by God's revelation of lovingkindness, and they can place their devotion and trust in God and His Christ, unless they have been chosen to fulfill another purpose such as Judas.

If that's what you believe, fine. It's not biblical, but changing your view is not my job. Please be respectful enough to not constantly belittle my beliefs, which have come from years of study and prayerful consideration. We all know you have a problem with RT. You don't have to constantly remind everyone, nor do you have to employ the favorite rhetorical trick of the Liberal Left Wing Media, where you attach a descriptive term, usually negative, to any mention of that which you oppose.

And before you cry foul for an ad hominem, I can cite example after example from your own posts, where you employ that rehtorical device. To point out a fact which is relevant to and impacts these discussions, is not an ad hominem, because I'm not attacking you as a person, I am pointing out what you do that causes strife and needless bickering.

And you really do need to learn what ad hominem means.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

This is a soteriological system advocated by Robert Picirilli in his book Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism.

From the back, Picirilli says Reformation Arminianism defends:

• total depravity
• the sovereignty of God to control all things for the certain accomplishment of His will
• God's perfect foreknowledge of, and the certainty of, all future events -- including the free, moral choices of human beings
• the penal satisfaction view of the atonement
• salvation by grace through faith and not by works, from beginning to end
• an apostasy that cannot be remedied

Has anyone read this book? Any thoughts on its content?

I have not read the book, but what is listed is historically accurate concerning Arminius' beliefs. These days both sides of the Arminian/Calvinist debate often distorts the other view. But it sounds like Picirilli is someone who has actually done his homework.


LDG

 

[heymikey80]

This is a soteriological system advocated by Robert Picirilli in his book Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism.

From the back, Picirilli says Reformation Arminianism defends:

• total depravity
• the sovereignty of God to control all things for the certain accomplishment of His will
• God's perfect foreknowledge of, and the certainty of, all future events -- including the free, moral choices of human beings
• the penal satisfaction view of the atonement
• salvation by grace through faith and not by works, from beginning to end
• an apostasy that cannot be remedied

Has anyone read this book? Any thoughts on its content?

I haven't read the book either.

The list is quite similar to an exposition of Arminius' own theology that I got from a seminary prof (admittedly truncated for Sunday School) about a decade ago. He was from the Netherlands and knew the issues from the modern state of the churches there. His view was that very often people who are considered 4-point calvinists or even amyraldians are misidentified -- they're actually following Arminius' precise position.

The Remonstrants -- the people who brought the Remonstrance that the Synod of Dordt addressed and who generally relied on Arminius to help defend them -- their position was more extreme than Arminius'. Arminius trained under Theodore Beza. He recognized many Calvinistic arguments as Biblical. Most of the Remonstrants did not. The Remonstrants were named "arminians" after Arminius died, and without Arminius' defense their position was rejected by the Synod of Dordt. Hence the broad use of the term "arminians".

 

[Ben johnson]

What is "an apostasy that cannot be remedied"? All apostasy can be remedied; as Paul says in Rom11, "do not be conceited but fear; you stand by faith, they were cut off for unbelief. Behold the kindness and severity of God --- to you, kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness else you also will be cut off; and if they do not continue in unbelief they will be grafted in again..."

Re-grafting of unbelievers, is "apostasy remedied".

Picirilli argues against the forms of "Arminianism" that deny God's sovereignty, God's omniscience, God's omnipotence, etc. But he also argues for an unlimited atonement, a conditional election, and grace that is not irresistible.

All of that sounds fully Scriptural.

 

[Ben johnson]

I have not read it, but it sure seems to be plowing the same ground of many others. For example Arminians can believe in "Total Depravity" they just define it differently. They can believe God accomplishes His will perfectly, yet including in His perfect will our independent choice to trust in Christ. Ditto for the "certainity of all future events" for they will occur exactly as God causes or allows them to occur.

Or as He foreknows they have already happened in the future. The future is as real as the past; all that will occur, has already occurred in one sense; but against "predestination", that particular future does consequent from our choices.

You see in this debate, words have no meaning. Folks craft ways of expressing ideas that sound and seem consistent with Biblical Principles yet once the lipstick is removed, we are back to an accomodation with pagan philosophy.

I wouldn't go that far; but words do have meaning. Our paradigms must be subject to Scripture, rather than Scriptural words being defined by prior paradigms. Take "escaped defilements/corruptions through the true-saved-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus" in 2Pet2:4 and 20; the first occurrance is considered "saved" (by Calvinists), the second "not". In Rom5:18, the first occurrance of "pas anthropos" (all men) is considered "all", the second "not-all".

Does Total Depravity mean all our deeds are as filthy rags or does it mean total spiritual inability to understand any spiritual things including the milk of the gospel? Two utterly different concepts, one biblical, one an invention of men, but both using the same name.

Eph2:1-8 is very clear; WHEN we were dead in sins, it was faith that saved us.

If apostasy cannot be remedied, then God is not all powerful, and we have by such false doctrine nullified the meaning of repentence. For the Bible teaches we both turn away from God and turn back (repent) to God unless God has chosen not to allow (grant) repentence.

Repentance is voluntary; "repentance" coexists with "belief" and "perseverance". In Rom2, Paul is rebuking them for counting on God's patience --- but such patience is MEANT to lead to repentance. And by subborn unrepentance, they were making God MAD.

But he also argues for an unlimited atonement, a conditional election, and grace that is not irresistible.

This is clearly the theme of Scripture.