Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance confuse them with lengthy BS. I don't have the time to respond properly to your long and tedious posts.
For this one let me say that it is utter nonsense and anyone who has read my post to which you are responding knows it. Comparing Calvinists to the Pharisee is blatant and utterly absurd bombastic claptrap intended to stir the pot and make the discussion about something which is false. It is a red herring and you know it.
I do understand what the Arminian believes and why. I have read Arminius and Wesley and others from your camp. Not only that but I have had many discussions with Arminian pastors and preachers. You haven't brought anything which I haven't seen or heard before. And the problem still remains that you can't get around Arminian theology has man saving himself by his decision to believe.
Every natural unsaved person in the world either hopes or claims to have a libertarian free will. It is part and parcel with the suppression of the knowledge of God that we all have in us.I'm convinced that it is nothing more than pride. Everyone is dumber than an Arminian who claims total libertarian freewill. Proof texting, lack of understanding, lack of nuance are all attempts to create a smoke screen.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
So why does Jeremiah 29:11 fit Arminian theology? To me, based on what you said of this being acceptable form of use, what your saying is Arminian theology allows verses used out of context to build there theology. I know your going to say, "no your an idiot for saying that", so please explain what I'm missing because your clearly said "....while [Jer 29:11 as if it directly is meant for you] fits better with an Arminian theology". The [] information is lifted from what I said. So I didn't put words in your mouth. So as long as you make the text mean something for the "you", then the "you" is able to make text mean anything they want. But clearly your probably going to put criteria on the "you" for interpreting. You aren't going to allow me to say "false doctrine" text is talking about Arminianism and I don't have to prove it because I just lift Scripture out of context and *poof* your a false teacher. So I don't understand why you pride yourself on lifting Scripture out of context.Not interpreting passages rightly is an issue of not carefully studying, not a byproduct of a certain Theological view. I have seen and heard both Calvinist and Arminians misapply Scripture in a lot of bad ways. And I have seen, heard and read solid Biblical exegesis from Calvinist and non-Calvinists. As far as the examples you give, the misapplication of Jer. 29:11 would not come from a Calvinist, because it tends to rub against their theology, while it fits better with an Arminian theology. As far as the "Goliath" thing, that is not such a big deal to me. Is that taking the narrative too far? It depends on what is meant. But there is certainly a lesson there in trusting God with insurmountable difficulties in life. Are our situations just like the situation for David facing Goliath? No, but there is a helpful parallel that can give us courage and peace in the face of opposition or great obstacles.
Why? Why? WHY? does Scripture have to be applied to our lives in every sermon? I think that is bad theology.Usually these types of things come from an attempt to apply Scripture to our lives in sermons (which is not always easy), and not so much in theological discussions or scholarly works. But look at what has been said here by some Calvinists. They have used the raising of Lazarus as a prooftext for regeneration preceding faith. Is that what that passages is really addressing? Of course not. But the Calvinists here see in it a parallel that supports their ordo salutis. For me, that is no less strained than someone appealing to Jer. 29 wrongly.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your wrong opinion. God bless.If you can't dazzle them with brilliance confuse them with lengthy [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. I don't have the time to respond properly to your long and tedious posts.
For this one let me say that it is utter nonsense and anyone who has read my post to which you are responding knows it. Comparing Calvinists to the Pharisee is blatant and utterly absurd bombastic claptrap intended to stir the pot and make the discussion about something which is false. It is a red herring and you know it.
I do understand what the Arminian believes and why. I have read Arminius and Wesley and others from your camp. Not only that but I have had many discussions with Arminian pastors and preachers. You haven't brought anything which I haven't seen or heard before. And the problem still remains that you can't get around Arminian theology has man saving himself by his decision to believe.
Actually, it is a reference to the fact that the Synod of Dort was a kangaroo court. I thought that would be "obvious", but I guess not. It has nothing to do with libertarian free will or any sort of "wicked display" of anything. It is a continual wonder to me how it is that Calvinists seem to think they have the right and insight to read the hearts and motives of others given so little information (in this case, a screen name). I would suggest a simple interaction with what people say without the constant use of the crystal ball that pretends to always know the supposedly sinister motives behind anyone's rejection of Calvinism. But that is just a suggestion, of course. God Bless.Kangaroodort is an obvious play on kangaroo court, meaning the end result is predetermined...this is also meant to be a swipe at Reformed theology and a wicked display of Roos need to claim libertarian freewill.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. You have read a ton into what I said and I am not sure why. The point was simply that the idea that God has a plan for our lives fits better with Arminian theology than Calvinist theology in the sense that God desires ultimate good for us (a truth that can be gleaned from numerous passages of Scripture), rather than possibly irresistibly determining from eternity to damn us for all eternity simply for His "good pleasure", etc. I also never suggested that Jer. 29:11 is being used properly by many who quote it. In fact, I preached a message long before this post that made that exact point.So why does Jeremiah 29:11 fit Arminian theology? To me, based on what you said of this being acceptable form of use, what your saying is Arminian theology allows verses used out of context to build there theology. I know your going to say, "no your an idiot for saying that", so please explain what I'm missing because your clearly said "....while [Jer 29:11 as if it directly is meant for you] fits better with an Arminian theology". The [] information is lifted from what I said. So I didn't put words in your mouth. So as long as you make the text mean something for the "you", then the "you" is able to make text mean anything they want. But clearly your probably going to put criteria on the "you" for interpreting. You aren't going to allow me to say "false doctrine" text is talking about Arminianism and I don't have to prove it because I just lift Scripture out of context and *poof* your a false teacher. So I don't understand why you pride yourself on lifting Scripture out of context.
Its like American lifting Scripture out of context to say America is God's nation. I'm sorry, but Christian who believe this doing the same illogic. But I'm quite sure your a fan of that, until it affects you.
As for Calvinist doing this. Of course. It may be in a different form. But there is no way you can pin point these Scriptures your referring to.
By the way, My theology is not Calvinistic, nor Arminian, but I still attend Baptist church.
Why? Why? WHY? does Scripture have to be applied to our lives in every sermon? I think that is bad theology.
I find it odd, you comparing Calvinist using Lazarus rising from the dead as a "proof text" for a doctrinal issue vs the use Jeremiah 29:11 as a motivational pep talk, which is truly prooftexting, but your good with it. why you good with Jer 29:11? Because its not attacking your soteriology. Jesus said ALL of Scripture is about him. All of it. Paul used Sarah and Hagar, from your perspective as prooftext. But all of Scripture is about Jesus. Why did Paul use the Text? To point to Christ's life, death and resurrection. Why is the Calvinist using Lazuras? to point to Christ's life death and resurrection and the gospel. Do I agree? Depends. Why is the Arminian using Jeremiah 29:11? to point to their needs and wants. Why does someone use Goliath as a symbol in their lives? to be a crystal answering.
Actually, it is a reference to the fact that the Synod of Dort was a kangaroo court. I thought that would be "obvious", but I guess not. It has nothing to do with libertarian free will or any sort of "wicked display" of anything. It is a continual wonder to me how it is that Calvinists seem to think they have the right and insight to read the hearts and motives of others given so little information (in this case, a screen name). I would suggest a simple interaction with what people say without the constant use of the crystal ball that pretends to always know the supposedly sinister motives behind anyone's rejection of Calvinism. But that is just a suggestion, of course. God Bless.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...chael-pattons-the-irrationality-of-calvinism/
That's a joke. It has nothing to do with goading. Are you the Synod of Dort? How then am I goading anyone? My screen name is in response to Calvinists who so often try to use the Synod of Dort as a means of condemning Arminianism as heresy. But the synod is illegitimate for such a claim for several reason, one of which being that it was a kangaroo court. This can be easily documented historically, so there is nothing at all wrong with my screen name. Ridiculous how you can make an issue of me "goading" by making a statement on the Synod of Dort (which has nothing to do with you personally) considering the frequent personal "goading" of so many of your posts towards me.Your user name has broken the rules about goading. I reported your post.
Thank you for explain the malicious meaning behind your chosen name so clearly.
jm
I apologize for overreacting.I honestly don't know what you are talking about. You have read a ton into what I said and I am not sure why.
So in other words your arguing one side seek out human positive emotional & will verses out of context and one side seeks out verses nuetralizing human emotions and will out of context?The point was simply that the idea that God has a plan for our lives fits better with Arminian theology than Calvinist theology in the sense that God desires ultimate good for us (a truth that can be gleaned from numerous passages of Scripture),
rather than possibly irresistibly determining from eternity to damn us for all eternity simply for His "good pleasure", etc.
We are in agreement in this.I also never suggested that Jer. 29:11 is being used properly by many who quote it. In fact, I preached a message long before this post that made that exact point.
The point was simply that this particular passage would lend itself more to misuse for those whose theology already held to the fact that God desires ultimate good for us, in accordance with His love for the world and desire to save all, etc., than a theology that strongly denies all such things, just as a passage on Lazarus rising from the dead or "Esau I hated" would lend itself more to misuse for those whose theology affirms reprobation from eternity for God's good pleasure or that being "dead in sin" means we are as unable to do anything as a physical corpse. Hope that clears things up. God Bless.
No. I didn't say anything about "human positive emotional & will" verses. I said that the idea of God having ultimately good plans for us fits better with a theology that fully affirms God's desire to save all in accordance with His love for all as communicated in numerous passes throughout Scripture. I am not sure how you got "human positive emotional" out of that. I think we basically agree on the rest. God bless.So in other words your arguing one side seek out human positive emotional & will verses out of context and one side seeks out verses nuetralizing human emotions and will out of context?
I didn't say you did. Just my interpretative frame of the modern Arminianism.No. I didn't say anything about "human positive emotional & will" verses. I said that the idea of God having ultimately good plans for us fits better with a theology that fully affirms God's desire to save all in accordance with His love for all as communicated in numerous passes throughout Scripture. I am not sure how you got "human positive emotional" out of that. I think we basically agree on the rest. God bless.
Which I think is part of the problem.I didn't say you did. Just my interpretative frame of the modern Arminianism.
I think the real problem is understanding what is true Arminian in modern churches and what is really semi-pelegianism & pelegianism by those who say they are Arminian. There is no way a good Arminian church twists Scripture like it gets twisted nowadays.Which I think is part of the problem.
Sorry if you found the rhetoric too much. But it is strange to me that you find this bothersome but don't mind continually referring to my view as "man centered", nor have you rebuked other Calvinists here for making all sorts of crazy claims that focus on supposed motives for holding to Arminianism rather than focusing on the Scriptural issues.
What you said seemed to say that all I had done was appeal to Scripture to make my argument, and as far as that goes, I was correct. That would indicate to me that your argument is more than a Scriptural argument, which is why I made the comment. Sorry if that was insulting or offensive.
What? We don't choose to receive a gift? We can't reject a gift? Are you serious? The giver causes us to receive the gift? Really? So if I buy a gift for someone and offer her the gift, it is not up to her whether or not she will receive it, but up to me as the giver? Come on. And this distinction between a gift and offer is contrived. You can't offer someone a gift if there is no gift to offer. What you are saying is that a gift is only a gift if it is received, and apparently, only of it is received irresistibly.
Says who? You? Let's say that an "offer" only becomes a "gift" when it is received (even though an "offering" is generally considered a synonym for a gift). That still does not mean it must be received irresistibly or it is not really a gift. And it doesn't mean there can be no condition for receiving the gift. Receiving is a condition. Unless you "receive" it, you don't "get" it. You said unless it is received, it is not even a gift, but only an offer. So even you acknowledge that one must meet the condition of "receiving" in order to get the gift. But how do we receive a gift? That depends on the nature of the gift. It has to do with how we take possession of the gift so that it becomes ours. Taking possession of a gift does not make it not a gift as you seem to claim. In fact, you claimed it is just an offer unless someone takes possession of it.
So on the one hand, you say it is not a gift, but only an offer unless you take possession of what is offered (which is what receiving means). On the other hand, you say that if one needs to take possession of the gift (which is indeed a condition) that means it is not a gift. Well, which is it?
What you are really wanting to say is that an offer cannot be received as a gift unless the offer is irresistible, or that a gift is not really a gift if it is not received irresistibly. But that is just a made up definition.
The free offer of salvation is "received" as a gift by simple trust in the giver. In trusting in Christ, we take possession of the gift. Trusting is a condition for receiving the gift, it is how we receive it.
Taking possession of a gift (however that might be done) does not contribute to the gift. It does not make it not a gift (in fact you said it can only be a gift if someone takes possession of it). It does not mean we gave the gift to ourselves. It does not mean we earned it. Taking possession of a gift (or responding to an offer) is not a meritorious act.
As for Scriptural support, here are just three simple examples from countless passages that make the same basic point:
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Gen. 1:29)
So if we do not eat fruit and plant food, does that mean God did not give it to us for food?
And to Noah he said: "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." (Gen. 9:3)
So if we eat only vegetables, does that mean that God did not give us meat to eat? And God said he gave us "everything that lives and moves" for food. So does that mean that if I do not eat some of everything that moves, God didn't really give me everything that lives and moves for food? Do I nullify this gift as a real gift until I eat beetles and grubs?
"Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, most beautiful of all lands— because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols. (Ezek. 20:15-16)
God "gave" them the Promised Land, yet they did not possess it because they failed to meet the required condition for taking possession of the gift. But you said a gift can only be a gift if it is received irresistibly and without conditions. Examples like these could be easily multiplied, but these are enough to demonstrate that your definitions and claims are not derived from Scripture or even in harmony with Scripture, but philosophically contrived.
Again, this is just an assertion on your part, and an assertion that has been debunked over and over again. There is no reason to conflate "meeting a condition" with "earning something." If someone writes me a check for a thousand dollars, I will not take "possession" of the money until I endorse and cash the check. Are you seriously saying that if I need to meet the condition of endorsing and cashing the check in order to take possession of the money, that means I "earned" the thousand dollars" and it was not really a gift at all?
"Hey Mike, where did you get all of that money? I thought you were out of work."
"Oh, I earned it."
"You got a job!"
"Nope, someone just wrote me a check for a thousand dollars."
"But I thought you said you earned it."
"That's because I did."
"How so?"
"Isn't it obvious? First I had to take the check out of his hand when he offered it to me. Then I had to sign the back of the check. Then I had to cash it to get the money. Clearly, after all of that I earned every penny."
"What???"
_____________
"What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3-5)
- I will address the rest of your reply after lunch. God Bless.
I think the real problem is understanding what is true Arminian in modern churches and what is really semi-pelegianism & pelegianism by those who say they are Arminian. There is no way a good Arminian church twists Scripture like it gets twisted nowadays.
I am not sure what you mean by that. I think in this reply I interact with the entirety of the post, so everything should be there. But if that is not the case, just scroll back a bit and you should find the post I am responding to. God bless.kangaroodort,
I'm trying to gain a better understanding of your posts and the posts to which you reply. Would you be so kind as to back quote at the beginning of each of your posts so I know where your response is directed.
For example, in your response here, you have not back quoted to link to the person to whom you are replying.
I'm impressed with your understanding of Arminianism, its theology and history, and those who misrepresent its beliefs.
I look forward to your clarification of this matter by back quoting every post in which you refer to another's post.
Oz
It didn't seem to me he was associating Arminians with Pelagians, etc., but saying that many who think they are Arminian are not truly Arminian, but actually Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. I could be wrong, but I think you might be misunderstanding him here.I would agree that there are some difficulties in Arminians not knowing their theology well and stating it carefully. Many that I know would not come near a forum like this to encounter some of the antagonism I've witnessed over years by Calvinists against Arminians.
Could you be making presumptions here of labelling Arminian semi-pelagianism and Arminian pelagianism? I object strongly to this pejorative association of Arminians with semi-pelagians and pelagians. I hear it often on this forum as a charge by Calvinists. Here is an explanation of Arminianism by Dr Roger E Olson: Roger Olson: An Interview Revisited: Part I. It doesn't include your kind of assessment. He explains why Arminians are different from semi-pelagians and pelagians. He places Charles Finney with heretical semi-pelagians, who are not true Arminians.
However, do remember that there are considerable variations among some Calvinists as well who are supralapsarian, Amyraldian, etc. Having varieties of Arminian is to be compared with varieties of Calvinism. Take a read of, Types of Calvinism – A Comprehensive List.
Oz
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?