Any Reformed Baptists here?

[Oz Baptist]

G'day from down under! Are there any other Reformed Baptists here? Is there a Reformed theology section on CF?

God bless

 

[TaylorSexton]

Semper Reformanda

 

[DeaconDean]

I was educated in seminary classes in Reformed Theology. However, I do not think its proper for one to call themselves "Reformed Baptist".

I am however, a Calvinist Baptist.

Look for an article on the internet entitled "Are Baptists Reformed?" by Lawrence Justice.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

G'day from down under! Are there any other Reformed Baptists here? Is there a Reformed theology section on CF?

God bless

If there were a 'Reformed theology section' it would need to include Classical/Reformed Arminians. Jacob Arminius to his dying day was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, thus meaning that Classical Arminianism is Reformed but not Calvinistic.

An Aussie from Brissy,
Oz

 

[TaylorSexton]

If there were a 'Reformed theology section' it would need to include Classical/Reformed Arminians. Jacob Arminius to his dying day was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, thus meaning that Classical Arminianism is Reformed but not Calvinistic.

I don't know about that. If Arminianism were Reformed, then the Synod of Dort (1618-19), in which Arminian theology was rejected entirely within the Dutch Reformed church (and, consequently, Reformed theology of all stripes), makes absolutely no sense.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't know about that. If Arminianism were Reformed, then the Synod of Dort (1618-19), in which Arminian theology was rejected entirely within the Dutch Reformed church (and, consequently, Reformed theology of all stripes), makes absolutely no sense.

Taylor,

Of course the Synod of Dort would refute Reformed Arminianism because Dort promoted Calvinistic beliefs.

The Christian Reformed Church (a Calvinistic denomination) wrote of the Synod of Dort: ‘The canons, therefore, are polemic in purpose, articulating Calvinistic beliefs in direct rebuttal of Arminianism’ (Canons of Dort).

However, Jeff Robinson wrote a penetrating piece for The Gospel Coalition on ‘Meet a Reformed Arminian’. He said:

Do you find a majority of Reformed evangelicals unacquainted with the writings of Arminius? How might it change our view of Arminianism were we better acquainted with his works?

I find most Calvinistic evangelicals are not at all acquainted with the writings of Arminius, just as most Arminian evangelicals aren’t acquainted with Calvin’s writings. This is a shame, and it wasn’t always this way. It seems there’s a lot more insularity these days in the evangelical community—a lot less getting beyond your soteriological tribe to really understand others. It’s odd that I can have so much in common with some Calvinists with regard to the person and work and gospel of Christ, justification, sanctification, Christian worldview, apologetics and epistemology, cultural engagement, eschatology, and so on (and even views on baptism and charismatic gifts). But all those commonalities are often disregarded because of one fact: I’m not a Calvinist; I don’t believe in unconditional election.

But it’s not only Calvinists who can be this way. Arminians can be just as insular. It’s funny that Arminians (or Calvinists) can work together with fellow Arminians (or Calvinists) who differ with them on whether infants should be baptized, the timing of Christ’s return, and charismatic gifts, and yet Calvinism and Arminianism has become a litmus test for evangelical fellowship in those same circles. This situation is precisely what keeps people from understanding and reading authors from the other side, which is unhealthy.

I think if Calvinists read Arminius himself, they would see someone whose heartbeat for the gospel was much like the older Calvinists they read and quote.​

How much of the works of Jacobus (James) Arminius have you read?

See Roger E. Olson, 'Is Arminianism "Reformed"?' Olson teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary.

Oz

 

[TaylorSexton]

Taylor,

Of course the Synod of Dort would refute Reformed Arminianism because Dort promoted Calvinistic beliefs.

The Christian Reformed Church (a Calvinistic denomination) wrote of the Synod of Dort: ‘The canons, therefore, are polemic in purpose, articulating Calvinistic beliefs in direct rebuttal of Arminianism’ (Canons of Dort).

However, Jeff Robinson wrote a penetrating piece for The Gospel Coalition on ‘Meet a Reformed Arminian’. He said:

Do you find a majority of Reformed evangelicals unacquainted with the writings of Arminius? How might it change our view of Arminianism were we better acquainted with his works?

I find most Calvinistic evangelicals are not at all acquainted with the writings of Arminius, just as most Arminian evangelicals aren’t acquainted with Calvin’s writings. This is a shame, and it wasn’t always this way. It seems there’s a lot more insularity these days in the evangelical community—a lot less getting beyond your soteriological tribe to really understand others. It’s odd that I can have so much in common with some Calvinists with regard to the person and work and gospel of Christ, justification, sanctification, Christian worldview, apologetics and epistemology, cultural engagement, eschatology, and so on (and even views on baptism and charismatic gifts). But all those commonalities are often disregarded because of one fact: I’m not a Calvinist; I don’t believe in unconditional election.

But it’s not only Calvinists who can be this way. Arminians can be just as insular. It’s funny that Arminians (or Calvinists) can work together with fellow Arminians (or Calvinists) who differ with them on whether infants should be baptized, the timing of Christ’s return, and charismatic gifts, and yet Calvinism and Arminianism has become a litmus test for evangelical fellowship in those same circles. This situation is precisely what keeps people from understanding and reading authors from the other side, which is unhealthy.

I think if Calvinists read Arminius himself, they would see someone whose heartbeat for the gospel was much like the older Calvinists they read and quote.​

How much of the works of Jacobus (James) Arminius have you read?

See Roger E. Olson, 'Is Arminianism "Reformed"?' Olson teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary.

Oz

The fact still remains that Dort rejected the Remonstrant doctrines as not Reformed, otherwise (again) the synod would have been altogether unnecessary. Dort declared clearly that Arminian/semi-Pelagian doctrine has no part in the Dutch Reformed church, because they are not Reformed by definition, as is defined by this very synod.

"Reformed" and "Calvinist" are synonymous, both in definition and in common usage. The article you referenced does not seem to be arguing otherwise, so I am unsure why it was posted. Besides, just because uses a term erroneously does not mean that it is now redefined. The Synod of Dort met together for the purpose all synods meet together: to determine and define by committee correct doctrine for their church. These synods therefore produce definitions, and the Synod of Dort, being the meeting of the Reformed church in mainland Europe, produced therefore the definition of "Reformed," and therefore anything other than a five-point, paedobaptist, Calvinist is by definition not Reformed. To say otherwise is to go entirely against historical fact, and to dismiss Dort altogether. "Reformed Arminian" is therefore a historical oxymoron. Sure, Arminius may have been a minister in the Reformed church (simply because he died before Dort could remove him), but again, Dort showed (decreed, rather) that he did not line up with her doctrine, and was therefore not Reformed at all.

Imagine me trying to argue that Arius was a "Nicene Arian." After all, he was a minister in the Church, was he not? Of course, we know that this is historically fallacious, because Nicaea defined Trinitarianism against Arianism, therefore Arianism, regardless of whether one argues for his orthodoxy, was by definition not orthodox. The same goes for Arminius. Many will try to argue for his Reformed orthodoxy, but according to the definition of Dort (which defined Reformed orthodoxy), said otherwise, and did so quite clearly.

To answer your question: no, I have not read anything by Arminius, nor do I plan to in the near future, not because I would not enjoy his writing (I know many Reformed people who do, and I am sure I would as well), but because my seminary class and reading load simply will not allow me. I don't even have time for Calvin right now! Regardless, I do not need to read a single word of Arminius to understand that Dort defined once and for all Reformed theology; it is stamped in history, and Arminius' own writings are irrelevant to that fact. Other movements with contrary doctrine can claim the name of Reformed if they wish, but if they insist on such, then words no longer mean anything, because anyone can be anything they want (and we see where that philosophy has led in our own society). The Reformed scholastics such as Turretin understood this much, hence their battle with Amyraldians, people who are called "four-point Calvinists" today, and are in general considered Reformed. Again, a very short study in historical theology says clearly otherwise.

As for Olson, I have absolutely no interest in reading his writings again. His gross caricatures of and absolute unwillingness to give a fair listening to Reformed theology (which is sadly par for the course in the SBC) turns my stomach even thinking about it. There are many other far better and more enriching works out there yet to be read than those of Roger Olson.

 

[DeaconDean]

To be clear, the biggest difference between "Reformed" Theology and "Arminian" (Remonstrants) Theology is the "Sovereignty of God" and "Man's Free Will".

I call myself a Calvinist because I agree that John Calvin was correct in most of what he taught. I was educated in Reformed Theology during seminary classes. But, there are a few things Reformed theology teaches that I do not accept.

"The Reformers have kept many doctrines and practices from Catholicism such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, sprinkling for baptism, and sacraments. Baptists have sought to avoid such man-made traditions as these, and to follow instead the New Testament pattern. The Westminster Confession of Faith is the most prominent of the Reformed confessions. The London Confession of 1689 is one of the most prominent Baptist confessions. The glaring difference between the two is seen at the very beginning. The Baptist confession says, "The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." This sentence does not appear in the Reformed Westminster Confession.

Baptists have always held that there can be no proper standard for what constitutes the church, but the one set forth in the New Testament, and that the New Testament is not vague or indefinite concerning the church, either as to what it is or where it came from or how it is to be governed. Baptists agree with the New Testament that the church is a congregation of believers which has been called out of the world and assembles around Jesus Christ and His Word. For Baptists the church is a visible congregation of regenerated, baptized individuals. To the Reformers in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church was still "the church", and it only needed reforming. They sought to reform a church which they regarded as the true body of Christ. They assumed that both the baptism, and the ordination of the Roman Church were still valid. Neither John Calvin nor any other Reformers denounced their Catholic baptisms. The Reformers did not set out to restore the true church by copying the instructions revealed in Acts. Instead they worked to reform the "church" which already existed. Reformed people view the church in two ways. They see it as the entire body of the elect. This body, of course, is invisible. They also see it as a local assembly or the aggregate of all local assemblies in a nation or on a continent. As such, the church is visible. So the Reformers believed in a universal, invisible church, and in a more local, visible church.

The Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith said in its article titled "The Civil Magistrate," "...he hath authority and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed for the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever transacted in them be according to the mind of God..." In the new American nation, in the late 1700's, this Reformed concept of church and state, which was held by the Puritans, was emphatically rejected. The article in the Westminster Confession had to be revised for Americans after the nation established the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Donatists did not see the Constantinian arrangements as a victory for Christianity, but as a perversion of the Scripture's teachings, and ultimately, as "the fall of the church." In the time of the Reformation 1,200 years later, the Anabaptists would have nothing to do with a state church. This was one of the main reasons for their separation from Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. The Reformers often referred to the Anabaptists as Donatists or Neo-Donatists because the Donatists had opposed this marriage of church and state 1,200 years before the Reformation.

Baptists believe with the New Testament that the civil magistrate has no right to require a form of religion for us or to punish us for not following the religion he requires. Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of the church and Lord of the state, but that he does not rule the state through the church nor the church through the state. We believe that the state can never compel men to believe the truth. Only the Holy Spirit's quickening work can compel men to do this. Baptists believe that Christians are citizens of two realms: an earthly realm which is ruled over by man, for both the saved and the unsaved, and a heavenly kingdom ruled by the Lord Jesus Christ. We base this partly on the words of our Lord in Matthew 22:17 and 21. For Baptists the church and the world are basically separate and antagonistic to each other. Baptists have no thought and no desire for uniting the two, and Baptists have never been the state religion anywhere. The attitude which a person has toward the Constantinian arrangements reveals whether he is Reformed or Baptist in what he believes about the church. Reformed people see the Constantinian change as a victory for Christianity. Baptists see it as the fall of the church.

The Reformers sprinkle for baptism just like the Catholic Church does. They brought this unscriptural practice with them from Catholicism. At the time of the Reformation, and even today, the Reformers admitted that immersion was the practice of the churches in the New Testament, but they sprinkle for baptism anyway. Reformed people tell us that sprinkling is as good as dipping for baptism, but Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" The Reformers practice infant baptism. They brought this with them from the Catholic Church. Reformed people say all Christian parents should have their babies sprinkled. Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" There is not a trace of infant baptism to be found in the New Testament. Scriptural, New Testament baptism is adult baptism. Nothing more clearly departs from the New Testament model than infant baptism. Baptists rejected these errors, and insist on believers baptism and baptism by immersion only, and we will not accept sprinklings or baptisms of infants as scriptural baptisms.

So then, are Baptists Reformed? The answer of both God's Word and of history is, No, Baptists are not Reformed, and when a Baptist identifies himself as Reformed he is saying something he doesn't really mean. The connotations of the term Reformed convey theological positions which are contrary to the Baptist position. Hopefully what most Baptists who call themselves Reformed mean is only that they have the same view of salvation as the Reformers. They believe in the doctrines of God's Sovereign grace. Some modern-day Baptists have come to see the biblical doctrines of grace by reading the Reformers and Puritans. In doing so they have also swallowed the Reformed teachings concerning the church. Baptists should accept the doctrines of God’s grace, but at the same time reject Reformed teachings about the church which are not based in God’s Word. Think about it! Whenever a person calls himself Reformed he is actually recognizing a connection in the past with the Roman Catholic Church because the Reformers came out of that church. Why should Baptists seek to identify with baby sprinklers, while teaching immersion themselves as the right way of baptism? It is hard to understand how Baptists who were hated and persecuted by Calvin, Luther and other Reformers could now want to be called Reformed themselves. To call a Baptist church Reformed is confusion to those who know God's Word and a little about history. The term "Reformed Baptist" is an oxymoron, a self contradictory term. One cannot be Reformed and Baptist at the same time as we have defined Reformed and Baptist beliefs in this message."

Are Baptists Reformed? By: Lawrence A. Justice

"Hopefully what most Baptists who call themselves Reformed mean is only that they have the same view of salvation as the Reformers. They believe in the doctrines of God's Sovereign grace."

On this, I agree 100%.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

"Reformed" and "Calvinist" are synonymous, both in definition and in common usage.

Taylor,

That is not so. I suggest that you become better informed of the doctrines of Reformed/Classical Arminianism.

If you read Four Views of Eternal Security (Matthew Pinson ed), Stephen Ashby writes the chapter on a Reformed Arminian approach to eternal security. Reformed does not mean Calvinist. See: Four Views on Eternal Security
https://www.christianbook.com/four-...ael-horton/9780310234395/pd/34390?event=ESRCG
Yet you claim to know Reformed theology when you don't even know the teachings of one of the leading Reformed writers, James Arminius. That's myopic, in my view.

To answer your question: no, I have not read anything by Arminius, nor do I plan to in the near future, not because I would not enjoy his writing (I know many Reformed people who do, and I am sure I would as well), but because my seminary class and reading load simply will not allow me.

Your view of Roger Olson's writings is contradictory and demeaning. Your claim is:

As for Olson, I have absolutely no interest in reading his writings again. His gross caricatures of and absolute unwillingness to give a fair listening to Reformed theology (which is sadly par for the course in the SBC) turns my stomach even thinking about it. There are many other far better and more enriching works out there yet to be read than those of Roger Olson.

Of course you wouldn't like his writings because he exposes how Calvinists have misrepresented Reformed/Classical Arminians. His book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (2016 IVP) is a brilliant assessment of this misrepresentation.

I recommend the article by Roger E Olson, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

All the best with your seminary studies. At which Seminary are you studying? I'm pleased my studies in that field have been completed.

Oz

https://www.christianbook.com/four-...ael-horton/9780310234395/pd/34390?event=ESRCG

 

[TaylorSexton]

Reformed does not mean Calvinist.

According to the definitions produces at Dort by the Reformed church, it does. That is historical fact. No one could possibly read the Canons and walk away thinking that Jacob Arminius or his followers could be considered Reformed.

...one of the leading Reformed writers, James Arminius.

According to Dort, his own church, he was not Reformed.

Your view of Roger Olson's writings is contradictory and demeaning.

How so? Have I misrepresented him in any way?

Of course you wouldn't like his writings because he exposes how Calvinists have misrepresented Reformed/Classical Arminians.

I don't like his writings because of his misrepresentations of historic Reformed theology (which is in no way Arminianism, according to the definitions of Dort). I have no concern about his address to Reformed misrepresentations of Classical Arminianism, as I completely agree that many Reformed people grossly misrepresent Arminian theology. However, that is not the issue at hand, is it?

 

[TaylorSexton]

If there were a 'Reformed theology section' it would need to include Classical/Reformed Arminians. Jacob Arminius to his dying day was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, thus meaning that Classical Arminianism is Reformed but not Calvinistic.

But, if you really feel this strongly, feel free to go to the Semper Reformanda section of the forums here and make your case to the moderators there about your conviction that the Reformed theology section of these forums needs to have a space for so-called "Reformed Arminians," since you seem to believe you have such a strong historical, doctrinal, and anecdotal case. Why have your view(s) vetted there?

 

[OzSpen]

To be clear, the biggest difference between "Reformed" Theology and "Arminian" (Remonstrants) Theology is the "Sovereignty of God" and "Man's Free Will".

I call myself a Calvinist because I agree that John Calvin was correct in most of what he taught. I was educated in Reformed Theology during seminary classes. But, there are a few things Reformed theology teaches that I do not accept.

"The Reformers have kept many doctrines and practices from Catholicism such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, sprinkling for baptism, and sacraments. Baptists have sought to avoid such man-made traditions as these, and to follow instead the New Testament pattern. The Westminster Confession of Faith is the most prominent of the Reformed confessions. The London Confession of 1689 is one of the most prominent Baptist confessions. The glaring difference between the two is seen at the very beginning. The Baptist confession says, "The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." This sentence does not appear in the Reformed Westminster Confession.

Baptists have always held that there can be no proper standard for what constitutes the church, but the one set forth in the New Testament, and that the New Testament is not vague or indefinite concerning the church, either as to what it is or where it came from or how it is to be governed. Baptists agree with the New Testament that the church is a congregation of believers which has been called out of the world and assembles around Jesus Christ and His Word. For Baptists the church is a visible congregation of regenerated, baptized individuals. To the Reformers in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church was still "the church", and it only needed reforming. They sought to reform a church which they regarded as the true body of Christ. They assumed that both the baptism, and the ordination of the Roman Church were still valid. Neither John Calvin nor any other Reformers denounced their Catholic baptisms. The Reformers did not set out to restore the true church by copying the instructions revealed in Acts. Instead they worked to reform the "church" which already existed. Reformed people view the church in two ways. They see it as the entire body of the elect. This body, of course, is invisible. They also see it as a local assembly or the aggregate of all local assemblies in a nation or on a continent. As such, the church is visible. So the Reformers believed in a universal, invisible church, and in a more local, visible church.

The Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith said in its article titled "The Civil Magistrate," "...he hath authority and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed for the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever transacted in them be according to the mind of God..." In the new American nation, in the late 1700's, this Reformed concept of church and state, which was held by the Puritans, was emphatically rejected. The article in the Westminster Confession had to be revised for Americans after the nation established the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Donatists did not see the Constantinian arrangements as a victory for Christianity, but as a perversion of the Scripture's teachings, and ultimately, as "the fall of the church." In the time of the Reformation 1,200 years later, the Anabaptists would have nothing to do with a state church. This was one of the main reasons for their separation from Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. The Reformers often referred to the Anabaptists as Donatists or Neo-Donatists because the Donatists had opposed this marriage of church and state 1,200 years before the Reformation.

Baptists believe with the New Testament that the civil magistrate has no right to require a form of religion for us or to punish us for not following the religion he requires. Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of the church and Lord of the state, but that he does not rule the state through the church nor the church through the state. We believe that the state can never compel men to believe the truth. Only the Holy Spirit's quickening work can compel men to do this. Baptists believe that Christians are citizens of two realms: an earthly realm which is ruled over by man, for both the saved and the unsaved, and a heavenly kingdom ruled by the Lord Jesus Christ. We base this partly on the words of our Lord in Matthew 22:17 and 21. For Baptists the church and the world are basically separate and antagonistic to each other. Baptists have no thought and no desire for uniting the two, and Baptists have never been the state religion anywhere. The attitude which a person has toward the Constantinian arrangements reveals whether he is Reformed or Baptist in what he believes about the church. Reformed people see the Constantinian change as a victory for Christianity. Baptists see it as the fall of the church.

The Reformers sprinkle for baptism just like the Catholic Church does. They brought this unscriptural practice with them from Catholicism. At the time of the Reformation, and even today, the Reformers admitted that immersion was the practice of the churches in the New Testament, but they sprinkle for baptism anyway. Reformed people tell us that sprinkling is as good as dipping for baptism, but Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" The Reformers practice infant baptism. They brought this with them from the Catholic Church. Reformed people say all Christian parents should have their babies sprinkled. Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" There is not a trace of infant baptism to be found in the New Testament. Scriptural, New Testament baptism is adult baptism. Nothing more clearly departs from the New Testament model than infant baptism. Baptists rejected these errors, and insist on believers baptism and baptism by immersion only, and we will not accept sprinklings or baptisms of infants as scriptural baptisms.

So then, are Baptists Reformed? The answer of both God's Word and of history is, No, Baptists are not Reformed, and when a Baptist identifies himself as Reformed he is saying something he doesn't really mean. The connotations of the term Reformed convey theological positions which are contrary to the Baptist position. Hopefully what most Baptists who call themselves Reformed mean is only that they have the same view of salvation as the Reformers. They believe in the doctrines of God's Sovereign grace. Some modern-day Baptists have come to see the biblical doctrines of grace by reading the Reformers and Puritans. In doing so they have also swallowed the Reformed teachings concerning the church. Baptists should accept the doctrines of God’s grace, but at the same time reject Reformed teachings about the church which are not based in God’s Word. Think about it! Whenever a person calls himself Reformed he is actually recognizing a connection in the past with the Roman Catholic Church because the Reformers came out of that church. Why should Baptists seek to identify with baby sprinklers, while teaching immersion themselves as the right way of baptism? It is hard to understand how Baptists who were hated and persecuted by Calvin, Luther and other Reformers could now want to be called Reformed themselves. To call a Baptist church Reformed is confusion to those who know God's Word and a little about history. The term "Reformed Baptist" is an oxymoron, a self contradictory term. One cannot be Reformed and Baptist at the same time as we have defined Reformed and Baptist beliefs in this message."

Are Baptists Reformed? By: Lawrence A. Justice

"Hopefully what most Baptists who call themselves Reformed mean is only that they have the same view of salvation as the Reformers. They believe in the doctrines of God's Sovereign grace."

On this, I agree 100%.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean,

What did Arminius teach about the sovereignty of God and man's (human beings') free will? Please cite sources from Arminius to demonstrate you know his teachings on these 2 topics.

Louis Berkhof, a Calvinistic systematic theologian and former president of Calvin Theological Seminary, wrote:

The decree [to make God the author of sin] merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the authors of sin. God decrees to sustain their free agency, to regulate the circumstances of their life, and to permit that free agency to exert itself in a multitude of acts, of which some are sinful. For good and holy reasons He renders these sinful acts certain, but He does not decree to work evil desires or choices efficiently in man. The decree respecting sin is not an efficient but a permissive decree, or a decree to permit, in distinction from a decree to produce, sin by divine efficiency (Berkhof 1941:108).​

An Arminian could not have stated it better! That is, God brings some things to pass by Himself, but with others he does not execute them Himself but involves sinful acts of human beings. The latter is demonstrated with evil in our world. God did not decree evil (he’s a perfect God) but he decreed to make ;free moral beings' (Berkhof's language) who are the authors of sin. This is all covered under the sovereignty of God.

Oz

Works consulted

Berkhof, L 1939/1941. Systematic Theology. London: The Banner of Truth Trust.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't like his writings [Roger E Olson, a SBC professor] because of his misrepresentations of historic Reformed theology (which is in no way Arminianism, according to the definitions of Dort). I have no concern about his address to Reformed misrepresentations of Classical Arminianism, as I completely agree that many Reformed people grossly misrepresent Arminian theology. However, that is not the issue at hand, is it?

Taylor,

As a seminary student, I suggest that you quit using assertions without evidence. You provided not one example from Roger Olson's writings to demonstrate your allegation of 'his misrepresentations of historic Reformed theology'.

The issue at hand for me is that you oppose the content of an SBC professor, Dr Roger E Olson, but provide not one example of that misrepresentation.

I consider that you have committed a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy with your statement.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

But, if you really feel this strongly, feel free to go to the Semper Reformanda section of the forums here and make your case to the moderators there about your conviction that the Reformed theology section of these forums needs to have a space for so-called "Reformed Arminians," since you seem to believe you have such a strong historical, doctrinal, and anecdotal case. Why have your view(s) vetted there?

Taylor,

That's a red herring of a response.

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean,

What did Arminius teach about the sovereignty of God and man's (human beings') free will? Please cite sources from Arminius to demonstrate you know his teachings on these 2 topics.

Louis Berkhof, a Calvinistic systematic theologian and former president of Calvin Theological Seminary, wrote:

The decree [to make God the author of sin] merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the authors of sin. God decrees to sustain their free agency, to regulate the circumstances of their life, and to permit that free agency to exert itself in a multitude of acts, of which some are sinful. For good and holy reasons He renders these sinful acts certain, but He does not decree to work evil desires or choices efficiently in man. The decree respecting sin is not an efficient but a permissive decree, or a decree to permit, in distinction from a decree to produce, sin by divine efficiency (Berkhof 1941:108).​

An Arminian could not have stated it better! That is, God brings some things to pass by Himself, but with others he does not execute them Himself but involves sinful acts of human beings. The latter is demonstrated with evil in our world. God did not decree evil (he’s a perfect God) but he decreed to make ;free moral beings' (Berkhof's language) who are the authors of sin. This is all covered under the sovereignty of God.

Oz

Works consulted

Berkhof, L 1939/1941. Systematic Theology. London: The Banner of Truth Trust.

How many times are we going to do this dance?

All you have to do is read Jacbus Arminus' works.

Did he not say:

"In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him."

Source

And he also says:

"But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence, as to be incapable of being moved, by the representation presented to him of some good, (whether it was of an inferior kind and relating to this animal life, or of a superior-kind and relating to spiritual life,) inordinately and unlawfully to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for that good, to decline from the obedience which had been prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is Under The Dominion of Sin."

Source

But the biggest thing Arminus said about "mans (so-called) free will" is seen in his section "On Divine Perdestination".

And no matter how you slice it, no matter how you try to divert away from it, in that section alone, salvation is dependant on man and his ability (free will) to chose salvation or reject it.

Sorry Oz.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

And Oz, look at any chart that compares Arminianism vs Calvinism and what is the first item on every list for Arminian theology?

Of the five points of the Remonstrants, this is:

#1 Free Will or Human Ability

Source

Sorry Oz

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TaylorSexton]

As a seminary student, I suggest that you quit using assertions without evidence. You provided not one example from Roger Olson's writings to demonstrate your allegation of 'his misrepresentations of historic Reformed theology'.

The issue at hand for me is that you oppose the content of an SBC professor, Dr Roger E Olson, but provide not one example of that misrepresentation.

So, have I misrepresented him or not? I suggest you stop making assertions about me without evidence.

But, since you request evidence, how about you start with these videos (not only is evidence cited, but it is even explains how Olson misrepresents Reformed theology on several occasions):

I consider that you have committed a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy with your statement.

Interesting. Can you explain how, citing evidence?

That's a red herring of a response.

Did I really, now? Let's see, you are the one who said in your initial response, "If there were a 'Reformed theology section' it would need to include Classical/Reformed Arminians," no? Is it, then, really off-topic to therefore request that you follow through with such an argument?

No offense, friend, but I am getting the impression that you are not interested in discussion, but only throwing "fallacy" cards without argument. That is classic aversion, and it is nothing new on this forum, in my experience.

 

[OzSpen]

How many times are we going to do this dance?

All you have to do is read Jacbus Arminus' works.

Did he not say:

"In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him."

Source

And he also says:

"But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence, as to be incapable of being moved, by the representation presented to him of some good, (whether it was of an inferior kind and relating to this animal life, or of a superior-kind and relating to spiritual life,) inordinately and unlawfully to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for that good, to decline from the obedience which had been prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is Under The Dominion of Sin."

Source

But the biggest thing Arminus said about "mans (so-called) free will" is seen in his section "On Divine Perdestination".

And no matter how you slice it, no matter how you try to divert away from it, in that section alone, salvation is dependant on man and his ability (free will) to chose salvation or reject it.

Sorry Oz.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean,

You begin your response to me with a poisoning the well fallacy. I do wish you would learn to quit using a logical fallacy like this because of your fallacious reasoning that prevents our having a logical discussion.

It's amazing how you've skewed the meaning of what Arminius wrote by not giving the full quote, which states:

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace (The Writings of James Arminius, vol 1. 1971, Baker Book House, pp. 252-253, italics in original).​

Arminius began this quote with an accurate description of God's creation of good human beings in the beginning who were made in the image of God. Then that image was marred by sin with all its consequences.

Arminius emphasised the importance of Divine Grace.

I note that you didn't bother to present Arminius's theology on the sovereignty of God.

Also, you make an assertion about Arminius's view that 'salvation is dependant on man and his ability (free will) to chose (sic) salvation or reject it'. Yet you provide not one example to support your claim. Therefore, I have to conclude that you have presented your opinion/assertion without proof.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

And Oz, look at any chart that compares Arminianism vs Calvinism and what is the first item on every list for Arminian theology?

Of the five points of the Remonstrants, this is:

#1 Free Will or Human Ability

Source

Sorry Oz

God Bless

Till all are one.

There you give me another fallacy, a straw man fallacy this time. More erroneous reasoning.

Roger E Olson has refuted your proposition in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2016), He covers it in Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will' (pp. 97-114).

'Sorry Oz' is an appeal to consequences of belief fallacy. You have replaced evidence by fallacious reasoning. I do wish you would understand how you wreck reasonable conversation by your regular use of logical fallacies.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So, have I misrepresented him or not? I suggest you stop making assertions about me without evidence.

But, since you request evidence, how about you start with these videos (not only is evidence cited, but it is even explains how Olson misrepresents Reformed theology on several occasions):

Interesting. Can you explain how, citing evidence?

Did I really, now? Let's see, you are the one who said in your initial response, "If there were a 'Reformed theology section' it would need to include Classical/Reformed Arminians," no? Is it, then, really off-topic to therefore request that you follow through with such an argument?

No offense, friend, but I am getting the impression that you are not interested in discussion, but only throwing "fallacy" cards without argument. That is classic aversion, and it is nothing new on this forum, in my experience.

Taylor,

I'm certainly interested in a discussion with you but not when you engage in the fallacious reasoning by using a logical fallacy. Reasonable conversation is aborted when you use such fallacies.

When you provided in your post an accusation against Roger Olson (I don't know Olson), a Reformed Arminian, that he misrepresented Calvinism, but you provided no evidence of this, you made assertions without evidence. That's not the way to refute anyone.

I'm not going to provide you with evidence about Olson. You were the one who made the claim against him and you did it without providing evidence of Olson's misrepresentation.

Oz