Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

[OzSpen]

Yes, Olsen believes in "bondage of the will" so much that he doesn't even beleive regeneration is necessary, just some weird half-way grace that the Bible never teaches, prevenient grace!

Please learn to spell his surname. His name is Roger E Olson.

Please provide the documentation that Roger Olson, an Arminian theologian, does not believe regeneration is necessary.

Oz

 

[Skala]

Please learn to spell his surname. His name is Roger E Olson.

Please provide the documentation that Roger Olson, an Arminian theologian, does not believe regeneration is necessary.

Oz

If he can't represent Calvinism accurately, why should I type his name accurately?

It's simple. He's a synergist, which by necessity means he doesn't believe regeneration is necessary for a sinner to come to faith in Jesus and repent of his sins.

In his system, all that is required is "prevenient grace", which the Bible doesn't teach.

 

[OzSpen]

If he can't represent Calvinism accurately, why should I type his name accurately?

It's simple. He's a synergist, which by necessity means he doesn't believe regeneration is necessary for a sinner to come to faith in Jesus and repent of his sins.

In his system, all that is required is "prevenient grace", which the Bible doesn't teach.

This is a red herring. I asked: 'Please provide the documentation that Roger Olson, an Arminian theologian, does not believe regeneration is necessary'.

You have provided ZERO documentation. What you have written is your own assertion, but without primary evidence from Roger E Olson, an Arminian theologian.

I'm waiting for evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #223 OzSpen said:

This is a red herring. I asked: 'Please provide the documentation that Roger Olson, an Arminian theologian, does not believe regeneration is necessary'.

You have provided ZERO documentation. What you have written is your own assertion, but without primary evidence from Roger E Olson, an Arminian theologian.

I'm waiting for evidence to support your assertion.

Would it be considered inappropriate for me to counsel OzSpen not to hold his breath?

 

[OzSpen]

In Post #223 OzSpen said:


Would it be considered inappropriate for me to counsel OzSpen not to hold his breath?

Pedrito,

I've been dealing with this fellow for the last 5 years and my expectations of getting source material that backs his assertions is close to zero. Please be assured I won't be holding my breath or expecting anything insightful to contribute to the conversation.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


Please remember that goading is a violation. Address the topic, not the person or their character.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[OzSpen]

ADMIN HAT ON


Please remember that goading is a violation. Address the topic, not the person or their character.


ADMIN HAT OFF

The topic that Skala raised, that Roger Olson does not believe in regeneration, was pursued by me and I asked him for evidence from Olson to support his claim. Zero evidence was provided by this person.

Are you going to ask him to provide the evidence I sought instead of goading me by providing zero evidence and erecting straw men fallacies?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

The topic that Skala raised, that Roger Olson does not believe in regeneration, was pursued by me and I asked him for evidence from Olson to support his claim. Zero evidence was provided by this person.

Are you going to ask him to provide the evidence I sought instead of goading me by providing zero evidence and erecting straw men fallacies?

Oz

If you have an issue, please bring it to the Member Services Center.

 

[Patmos]

The topic that Skala raised, that Roger Olson does not believe in regeneration, was pursued by me and I asked him for evidence from Olson to support his claim. Zero evidence was provided by this person.

Oz

I came by this forum via Richard Coord's web site, like me he is an Arminian. The reason I joined CF was to refute a poster who kept on posting "Arminians believe..." followed by a load of rot compared to what they actually believe. Then referenced Society of Evangelical Arminians website should anyone want to know what they really believe.

It seems once one anti Arminian poster stops posting false allegations ( for a while), up pops another one. What is going on here ?

 

[Patmos]

If he can't represent Calvinism accurately,

Well, actually he can, and does.

why should I type his name accurately?

Because he is a committed Christian!

It's simple. He's a synergist, which by necessity means he doesn't believe regeneration is necessary for a sinner to come to faith in Jesus and repent of his sins.

Here we go with the rot and false witness

In his system, all that is required is "prevenient grace",..

And it gets worse. He does not have a "system".

Exodus 23:1 "Do not spread false reports. Do not help a ...
biblehub.com/exodus/23-1.htm
You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. ... "You are not to spread a false report, nor are you to join forces with the wicked to be a ...

Exodus 20:16 "You shall not give false testimony against ...
biblehub.com/exodus/20-16.htm
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. ... Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. .... "Do not spread false reports. Do not help a ...

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Thou_shalt_not_bear_false_witness_against_t..

29 Bible verses about Witnesses, False
bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Witnesses,-False

 

[JeremyMikeG]

I lean towards Calvinism because God is all knowing. He knows who will choose Him and who will not. He elects those that he knows has a true heart for Him.

 

[OzSpen]

I lean towards Calvinism because God is all knowing. He knows who will choose Him and who will not. He elects those that he knows has a true heart for Him.

That's not the Calvinistic version of Unconditional Election or Predestination. 'He knows who will choose Him' is not the Calvinistic view.

 

[mikedsjr]

Going back to the foundation of the thread, here is an excerpt from "Saving Leonardo" by Nancy Pearcey on pg 218.

Beginning with the Romantics, however, artists began to renounce rules and methods as nothing but dead conventions. Their goal was the free unleashing of inner energies and impulses from the unconscious. Looking at a work of art, you were no longer supposed to ask, Is it a good example of the rules of the craft? but only, Does it express the artist’s inner vision? Artists “focused more on the process of externalizing consciousness than on the resultant work of art.” What counted was not aesthetic quality, but how well the image embodied the artist consciousness.

This sort of thinking had infiltrated the church and has altered the Arminian classical position to something where the subjective cultural experience overrules scriptural interpretation. The artist isn't God in this, but the person interpreting and Art is the Scriptures.

Depending on how progressive minded the person is will reflect how they read certain portions of Scripture. Arminianism will hold the progressive viewpoints because there is no room in Calvinism for such people. Arminianism will have the quite conservative Holding to classical Arminianism but is a minority because Progressive Arminianism is where the angst is at. The more progressive one is in their theology the more vitriol one has for conservative traditional teachings in the church that even classical Arminians hold.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patmos]

In another thread we have come to an impasse with the meaning of words.

I wrote this:

Word Definitions as requested.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ (hi-lights in red are mine)

WCF and Dort use the word 'Predestine' and 'Foreordain' a lot.

Definition of foreordain
transitive verb
: to dispose or appoint in advance : predestine

Definition of predestine
transitive verb
: to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand

Definition of predestinate
: destined, fated, or determined beforehand

Obviously we look past the word in blue. BUT, 'foreordain' has the SAME meaning as 'predestine' which means 'determine'. The words are interchangeable. Has this cleared things up? Please check any other dictionary if Webster's has got it wrong.

I was informed with:
"All of these words mean something completely different when used in another context, and a general definition does little more than give a meaning that incorporates all of the possible uses at once."

Webster's does give many meanings for these words but I have focused on the Biblical ones. I have asked where these words mean something completely different and what is that different meaning.

The reason I ask is because Westminster Confessions says:

CHAPTER 1 Part 7.
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, Nor alike clear unto all yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Therefore, I assert, an unlearned person such as myself in the due use of ordinary means - a dictionary - may attain sufficient understanding of those things necessary for salvation.

Can anybody help with how these words mean something completely different?

 

[twin1954]

In another thread we have come to an impasse with the meaning of words.

I wrote this:








I was informed with:
"All of these words mean something completely different when used in another context, and a general definition does little more than give a meaning that incorporates all of the possible uses at once."

Webster's does give many meanings for these words but I have focused on the Biblical ones. I have asked where these words mean something completely different and what is that different meaning.

The reason I ask is because Westminster Confessions says:

CHAPTER 1 Part 7.
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, Nor alike clear unto all yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Therefore, I assert, an unlearned person such as myself in the due use of ordinary means - a dictionary - may attain sufficient understanding of those things necessary for salvation.

Can anybody help with how these words mean something completely different?

If you look at how the words are actually used in the Scriptures you will find that God predestines people not things and He foreordains things not people.

 

[Patmos]

If you look at how the words are actually used in the Scriptures you will find that God predestines people not things and He foreordains things not people.

And the difference is ?

 

[twin1954]

And the difference is ?

How the Scriptures use the words. Destiny is concerned with people not things. Foreordination concerns God's ordering of events in His wise providence to bring to pass His purpose.

 

[Patmos]

How the Scriptures use the words. Destiny is concerned with people not things. Foreordination concerns God's ordering of events in His wise providence to bring to pass His purpose.

Thanks Twin.

Please could you give some examples. I see a lot of writing where the terms are use interchangeably, hence I am confused for one.

 

[twin1954]

Thanks Twin.

Please could you give some examples. I see a lot of writing where the terms are use interchangeably, hence I am confused for one.

(Rom 8:29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

(Rom 8:30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Notice that it doesn't say what He foreknew or what He did predestinate. God foreknows people and He predestines people.


(Eph 1:5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Again notice here that God predestinated people.


(1Pe 1:18) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

(1Pe 1:19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

(1Pe 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


Notice here that not only is the Person of Christ foreordained but His work and accomplishments. Actually it is the same Greek word as used in 1Pet. 1:2 where we find the word foreknowledge. God foreknows because He has foreordained.

 

[DeaconDean]

Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines "predestinate" as:

"This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense “to foreordain” “to predestinate.” Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: “h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai, Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, “hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn,” 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: “proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ,” Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, “proopizw”, p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

The rules in Greek are almost the same as in English.

In Romans 8:28-29 we read:

"And we know that in all things God works for the of those who love him, have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

A lot of debate has, and still does rage, on these verses. What people fail to see is one little word. At the start of verse 29, we see the word "for", in the Greek it is "eis". It is a conjuction, and as in English, in Greek it is used the same way. It links verse 28 to verse 29.

Why did God "foreknow" those He predestinated? Because He "called" them first! We know this because conjunctions link words and phrases together. The little word "for' links those who are called with those who are foreknown.

But what really amazes me above all else is that people want to say this or that about predestination on Rom. 8:29, but they all fail to see what the goal is of predestination.

"to be conformed to the image of his Son".

The object of "predestination" in Rom. 8:29 is "to be conformed to the image of his Son".

God Bless

Till all are one.