Arminianism is inconsistent

[Sovereign Grace]

Wow do you guys even understand the terms your throwing around? I guess not.

Yes we do!

 

[twin1954]

Twin towers, you are answering your own post 162. Along with your false allegations on what you allege others think and believe, even when you have been directed to a web site which expounds what they believe, and expounds that their beliefs are in total contradiction to you false allegations.

I debate people not other websites. If you can show where my posts are wrong then do so in your own words. I do not direct you to any website as proof of my premises. My posts are my own words and my own to defend.

Why do you put false allegation in other peoples mouth in the first place ? Bearing false witness is NOT Christian.

Claiming that I am bearing false witness is one thing proving it is another. If you can, prove that my "allegations" are false.

Incidentally your avatar, you say your faith is not Christian. Why then are you posting on a Christian forum ?

Where did you get the idea that I am not a Christian? Do you think that I am not a Christian because I use the label of Calvinist?

 

[Patmos]

Patmos,

Your going to find many Calvinist on this site argument is a straw man logical fallacies. As you can see once i pointed this out in this thread and once i showed what he was accusing me of being actually meant he left. This show that the majority of people on here want to be right and are not interested in truth. When they are showed wrong, they leave, or insult but never concede you in fact have a point. I would recommend you do not get emotional about it. You will be report if you do and even if they started it you will get in trouble because they reported it first. It is another game played on this site. I would recommend you opt out of the game, in your user options you can place people on ignore. you will not see there name or any of there post. I have found this is the best way to deal with certain people.

You must take what is said with a grain of salt. Most people on here have a google search education at best. People like me and Oz have higher education and most people who do enjoy debating what they have learned with others. Those which lack education often attack others and commit logical fallacies to try to make up for the lack of knowledge, when all else fails they will correct your grammar, when there is not any better and would not be allowed in an academic setting. I am not saying a person has to have higher education to debate. Now faith is not formally trained but has spend many many years in the baptist church. His knowledge is very much on point and good quality even though we disagree on certain things.

If i could give you a bit of advice it would be to use ignore and debate with those who are willing to concede to being wrong.

I hope you enjoy your self on the site and you find many fruit conversations. God Bless.

I guess you have interacted with twin.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Patmos]

I debate people not other websites. If you can show where my posts are wrong then do so in your own words. I do not direct you to any website as proof of my premises. My posts are my own words and my own to defend.

Claiming that I am bearing false witness is one thing proving it is another. If you can, prove that my "allegations" are false.

Where did you get the idea that I am not a Christian? Do you think that I am not a Christian because I use the label of Calvinist?

Per your posts 162, 167. You announce what others believe then shoot it down as 'inconsistent'. As pointed out these others do not believe what you have alleged, as you could see for yourself if you wanted to.

Refutations - Jesus 173, Spurgeon 177.

My best mate and drinking partner, as I said some where above, is a Calvinist. So regrading your last point, no.

Thanks

 

[Bluelion]

So, you seem to be indicating that secondary causes are used by God (Hitler, rapists, terrorists & Sept 11, etc) but these are in his plan. He didn't cause them but allowed people use their free wills to perpetrate them.

How then do you deal with Isa 45:7 (ESV),

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.​

Oz

I like how the NLT explains it. Isa 45:7 7 I create the light and make the darkness.
I send good times and bad times.
I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.

I also think God is saying He sometimes uses evil for His will. Such as Babylon conquering Israel.

If you're asking me if I think God is the author of evil the answer is no. Evil is going against God I think He allowed it, but the author would have to be the first angels which disobeyed and began evil. no?

 

[Bluelion]

Yes we do!

Yeah then could you explain how my post was theism?

 

[OzSpen]

I like how the NLT explains it. Isa 45:7 7 I create the light and make the darkness.
I send good times and bad times.
I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.

I also think God is saying He sometimes uses evil for His will. Such as Babylon conquering Israel.

If you're asking me if I think God is the author of evil the answer is no. Evil is going against God I think He allowed it, but the author would have to be the first angels which disobeyed and began evil. no?

One of the problems with the KJV translation of Isaiah 45:7 is how it translates the Hebrew, ra, as 'evil', i.e. God creating evil. The NLT and ESV provide better understandings of the meaning of ra in Isa 45:7 (ESV).

I have attempted to address some of these issues in my article, Isaiah 45:7: Who or what is the origin of evil?

My understanding is that God creates the tornadoes and hurricanes that come to your country (calamity), the cyclones and floods that come to Australia, and the tsunamis that come to countries around the world. Remember the big one in 2004 that hit Indonesia?

Regards,
Oz

 

[twin1954]

Per your posts 162, 167. You announce what others believe then shoot it down as 'inconsistent'. As pointed out these others do not believe what you have alleged, as you could see for yourself if you wanted to.

Refutations - Jesus 173, Spurgeon 177.

My best mate and drinking partner, as I said some where above, is a Calvinist. So regrading your last point, no.

Thanks

You have not refuted anything that I have said you have only denied it. As for whether you believe these things of course you do but you just don't realize that you do. Each one is a logical conclusion drawn from Arminian theology. They are inescapable conclusions. I can give you the simple syllogisms if you like.

 

[Bluelion]

One of the problems with the KJV translation of Isaiah 45:7 is how it translates the Hebrew, ra, as 'evil', i.e. God creating evil. The NLT and ESV provide better understandings of the meaning of ra in Isa 45:7 (ESV).

I have attempted to address some of these issues in my article, Isaiah 45:7: Who or what is the origin of evil?

My understanding is that God creates the tornadoes and hurricanes that come to your country (calamity), the cyclones and floods that come to Australia, and the tsunamis that come to countries around the world. Remember the big one in 2004 that hit Indonesia?

Regards,
Oz

Good article. Can i ask you have you heard the arugement that nature is neither good nor evil? The arugement is a bit vague to me having gone over it along time ago, but it insist that nature is neither good nor evil but a natural processes which is brought on by natural changes in space and earth and also un natural causes such as pollution from man. It basically argues that God that God does not send the cyclone for one case, but that it is environmental factors. Where God comes in is when it hits a population but only a few people die and it is called a miracle.

My understanding Of Rev, is it is not God pouring out His wrath as first thought but the earth changing in reaction to man destroying it, when God's wrath comes into play is when the peace treaty is broken in the 3.5 point in the tribulation. In the Bible the flood was caused by God. I think in cases of extreme weather even supernatural like the rain in the flood God is causing it, but I do not believe he causes all storms necessarily. Before people start labeling it, it does not fit into any one group I know of. I am not saying God does not effect nature or that nature is all effect by God. I think nature goes with laws in this world but is also subject to God. As shown with Jesus rebuking the storm.

 

[ToBeLoved]

In Calvinistic theology, the faith we are saved by is, itself, a gift of grace. This is because Ephesians 2:8-9 and other places say that faith is a gift.

Thus, salvation is not the result of the combination of faith + grace, but rather, faith itself is part of the gracious "salvation package", as it were, that God gives us freely.

Well that is odd. Because God's Word says 'by faith' so it's not a package deal. Now we all do have a certain amount of faith given by God, but it is not part of a 'salvation package' else all would be saved.

 

[OzSpen]

Good article. Can i ask you have you heard the arugement that nature is neither good nor evil? The arugement is a bit vague to me having gone over it along time ago, but it insist that nature is neither good nor evil but a natural processes which is brought on by natural changes in space and earth and also un natural causes such as pollution from man. It basically argues that God that God does not send the cyclone for one case, but that it is environmental factors. Where God comes in is when it hits a population but only a few people die and it is called a miracle.

My understanding Of Rev, is it is not God pouring out His wrath as first thought but the earth changing in reaction to man destroying it, when God's wrath comes into play is when the peace treaty is broken in the 3.5 point in the tribulation. In the Bible the flood was caused by God. I think in cases of extreme weather even supernatural like the rain in the flood God is causing it, but I do not believe he causes all storms necessarily. Before people start labeling it, it does not fit into any one group I know of. I am not saying God does not effect nature or that nature is all effect by God. I think nature goes with laws in this world but is also subject to God. As shown with Jesus rebuking the storm.

That's very humanistic understanding regarding nature. It does not come from a biblical worldview and God's view of the origin of evil (Genesis 3 ESV).

Mid-trib is a man-made invention in my view.

As for the world-wide flood at the time of Noah (Gen 6-9), we know that God caused it as the fountains of the deep were supernaturally moved.

Yes, God has created laws on nature, but it is He who still sends the rain on the just and the unjust.

Oz

 

[Hoghead1]

Too many persons simply view God as the source of law and order. I understand God differently. I think God is calling us to freedom, creativity, and adventure, jarring out of our complacency, challenging the status quo, breaking down all nice, neat tight order.

 

[OzSpen]

Too many persons simply view God as the source of law and order. I understand God differently. I think God is calling us to freedom, creativity, and adventure, jarring out of our complacency, challenging the status quo, breaking down all nice, neat tight order.

These are only your assertions with no biblical evidence.

 

[twin1954]

Too many persons simply view God as the source of law and order. I understand God differently. I think God is calling us to freedom, creativity, and adventure, jarring out of our complacency, challenging the status quo, breaking down all nice, neat tight order.

On what do you base your views? Is it just your imagination or the writings of someone else? It certainly isn't based in Biblical thinking.

 

[DawnStar]

Too many persons simply view God as the source of law and order. I understand God differently. I think God is calling us to freedom, creativity, and adventure, jarring out of our complacency, challenging the status quo, breaking down all nice, neat tight order.

Sounds like you think God is calling us to near anarchy. Look at how He created the universe. Order out of chaos. Do you now believe that God is calling us to reverse that?

 

[Patmos]

It is inconsistent in that it claims that choosing to believe is not a work but has no logical reason why it isn't. It is inconsistent in that it makes the love of God a useless emotion while claiming that the love of God is what saves us. It is inconsistent in that it makes the accomplished atonement of Christ a useless thing unless man does something to give it power. It is inconsistent in that it takes the glory of God and gives it to men all the while claiming that the glory belongs to God. It is inconsistent in many ways.

I guess I am allowed to say 'bunk' as this is a word twin used. The above post, on what others are supposed to believe is bunk.

 

[Bluelion]

That's very humanistic understanding regarding nature. It does not come from a biblical worldview and God's view of the origin of evil (Genesis 3 ESV).

Mid-trib is a man-made invention in my view.

As for the world-wide flood at the time of Noah (Gen 6-9), we know that God caused it as the fountains of the deep were supernaturally moved.

Yes, God has created laws on nature, but it is He who still sends the rain on the just and the unjust.

Oz

I am not sure I believe God causes every little storm. It seems the laws of nature can handle that. I understand God does effect the weather when ever He pleases but I am not sure it is always. Was it Isaiah who prayed it would not rain and it did not for 3 years? There certainly is biblical support for God controlling the weather, but i think it is an exception instead of the norm.

When you say mid trib is man made are you speaking of the rapture theory of this? I am pre my self.

 

[Patmos]

Many here will have seen I have been in hot debate with Twin1954.

Should one say "mention author of sin, God reprobating man, puppet theory etc one get told no Calvinist believes this.

Well, yes they do and I am very thankful one has posted this.

Sorry, I see you edited your post after I replied. Double predestination is just the fact that God predestines both those who are saved and those who are damned, and yes I hold to that view. If you go back into my previous posts you will also find that I believe the fall was predestined. I don't think that is specific to Hyper Calvinism though.

I have no wish to belittle ClothedINGrace at all. My drinking pal is after all of the same persuasion. I would like to point out that it is not Arminianism that is inconsistent.

And with this honest Calvinist's post, Ill leave it here.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Many here will have seen I have been in hot debate with Twin1954.

Should one say "mention author of sin, God reprobating man, puppet theory etc one get told no Calvinist believes this.

Well, yes they do and I am very thankful one has posted this.




I have no wish to belittle ClothedINGrace at all. My drinking pal is after all of the same persuasion. I would like to point out that it is not Arminianism that is inconsistent.

And with this honest Calvinist's post, Ill leave it here.

Just because someone is an inconsistent Calvinist doesn't mean that Arminianism is consistent, nor does it mean that Calvinism is inconsistent. There are a wide range of beliefs in both camps.

 

[Patmos]

Just because someone is an inconsistent Calvinist doesn't make Arminianism consistent, nor does it make Calvinism inconsistent. There are a wide range of beliefs in both camps.

Absolutely right, thank you.
My objection has been with those who say "xxx think so and so.." and then trot out things that xxx does NOT believe. Proving what xxx actually believes e.g via their website is followed by dodging and diving etc. Particularly with this thread - people are inconsistent ( some are very offensive and inflamatory) but this does not prove anything, rather indicates the opposite.