Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[twin1954]

While there is a grain of truth in what you are saying, it is not the whole truth. Non-Calvinist theology is inconsistent, and quite often...thoughtless and emotional in practice. I have heard many worship songs I would consider "will worship", that much I will concede. Songs focusing on self, and what I will do, etc.



What you are suggesting is a strawman version of non-Calvinism. By the way, I am using the phrase "non-Calvinist" because countless non-Calvinists have never heard the terms "Arminian" or "Calvinist", much less know what they mean. It is quite possible to love God and His sovereign grace and be a non-Calvinist...even if they are inconsistant in their beliefs. I daresay the thief on the cross next to Jesus was no Calvinist...nor Reformed. I doubt he knew much theology, or read any of Paul's letters.



Praise God my salvation is not in your hands! Praise God He knows what He has done in my life! I don't seem to recall anybody claiming that simply changing from one theology to another is salvation...quite the contrary. That you doubt our salvation...means nothing. Oh ye of little faith!



Knowledge cannot save, God alone saves.



I beg to differ. It is to recognize that despite human error, God alone has the power to save. It would seem, that it has not crossed your thinking, that the work of coming to a perfect interpretation of all of Scripture (the interpretation you hold), is indeed a work, and a work you are involved in, because it requires learning and memory retention. I think I know how you will respond but I want to hear it...



Wait just a minute there...I will tell you firsthand, when I had an Arminian like understanding, I did not believe anything I did saved me. I would tell you straight up that I could not save myself, God saved me. What you are suggesting is a strawman. Even if non-Calvinists preach heavy on works, it does not necessarily conclude that they preach a works based salvation. One can preach salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone and still preach Christian duty, human responsibility. We have to be involved in Salvation to be saved, repentance is our duty, not God's. Read carefully, if I had NOTHING to do with my salvation, no involvement, then how is it that God the Holy Spirit raised ME to life? How is it that Christ gave ME saving faith? If I had nothing to do with my salvation...not only this, but particular redemption involves specific individuals. Yes, I had a part, my part was sin, Praise God for Jesus Christ died for my sins, and rose from the dead, so that I can have eternal life with Him.

I will try to respond to this in the morning. It is either very late or very early depending on your prospective.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If you were to pick up Mr Gill, among other historic baptists, and did your own research,

I have a very high opinion of Mr. Gill. Quite often when I read a Bible commentary, looking for more insight, I lean on his strong upright shoulders. I really do enjoy reading his exposition of the Bible. However, even a great theologian such as him, is subject to imperfection in understanding, etc. I would say the same of John Calvin, etc. Their writings are extremely insightful and helpful (in nearly everything), I pay them respect, however their writings are like all extra-biblical writings, underneath the authority of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura!

I am curious, what do you say to the charge that Mr Gill was a Hyper? I am not making the charge (though I suspect it's based on his book "The Cause of God and Truth"), merely fishing for your thoughts.

 

[twin1954]

twin1954
The simple fact is that Arminian free will works religion is will worship. But so is much of Reformed theology.
While there is a grain of truth in what you are saying, it is not the whole truth. Non-Calvinist theology is inconsistent, and quite often...thoughtless and emotional in practice. I have heard many worship songs I would consider "will worship", that much I will concede. Songs focusing on self, and what I will do, etc.

There is more than a grain of truth I am afraid. The whole non-Calvinist approach to worship is man centered and therefore focused on the will of man. They preach sermons intended to make men do something: pray, read, give and live. Their approach to the gospel is God has done His part and now you must do yours.

twin1954
Second I want to speak to the fact that an Arminiam free will works religionist is saved. It is impossible. You simply can't love God and hate His sovereign grace.
What you are suggesting is a strawman version of non-Calvinism. By the way, I am using the phrase "non-Calvinist" because countless non-Calvinists have never heard the terms "Arminian" or "Calvinist", much less know what they mean. It is quite possible to love God and His sovereign grace and be a non-Calvinist...even if they are inconsistant in their beliefs. I daresay the thief on the cross next to Jesus was no Calvinist...nor Reformed. I doubt he knew much theology, or read any of Paul's letters.

It is no strawman at all. I am not the least bit concerned with whether anyone knows what Calvinism or Arminianism is. I use those terms because I am speaking to folks who supposedly do know the difference. While it is true that you can love God and His sovereign grace and not know that it is Calvinist to do so it isn’t possible to love God and hate His truth. I am not concerned with their inconsistencies, that is just a matter of theology, I am concerned with who it is they worship. The thief knew one thing needful, Christ is the Lord God. He got it by revelation the same as all believers do. Sure you can read the Scriptures and know all the facts about God according to the Scriptures but to know Him comes only by revelation. Matt. 11:27.16:17,John 6:44-46, Gal. 1:16 And no I am not promoting a Gnostic form of knowledge. It doesn’t come from out of the blue apart from the Scriptures but it is much more than just a mental assent to things it is Christ in you the hope of glory. You can hear the Gospel all your life and be as religious as they come and not know Christ until He is revealed in the heart by the Spirit. Until then all you knowledge is useless. I was a dead Calvinist most of my life. I had all the theology and doctrine a man could desire and preached it. But I didn’t know Christ. Then one day Christ revealed Himself to me and in me by three little words, Christ is all.

twin1954
I realize that most of you were Arminians at one time and at some point came to believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation. Many of you think that you were saved as an Arminian but if that were the case it isn't a matter of sovereign grace but of superior grace. All you have done is come to superior knowledge. You have simply changed one theology for another. I am sorry but that isn't salvation.
Praise God my salvation is not in your hands! Praise God He knows what He has done in my life! I don't seem to recall anybody claiming that simply changing from one theology to another is salvation...quite the contrary. That you doubt our salvation...means nothing. Oh ye of little faith!

You read into what I said that which is not there. I never said that you aren’t saved I said that you weren’t saved as an Arminian. But changing theologies is not salvation. If all you have done is change theologies then you still aren’t saved. But if you have changed the God you worship thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift. I fear that many Calvinists are just as dead as I was for all those years because they have superior grace that gives them superior knowledge but they have nothing else. The Arminian can be their brother because they haven’t gotten that superior grace yet. That is why so many work very hard to make Calvinists out of folks. They want them to have that superior knowledge. I never try to make anyone a Calvinist I seek for them to know Christ.

twin1954
Knowledge of a sovereign God isn't higher knowledge it is saving knowledge.
Knowledge cannot save, God alone saves.

Yet there is no salvation apart from knowledge. Rom. 10:14You can’t believe in someone whom you don’t know. Paul sought to know Christ and be fond in Him. Phil. 3:10

twin1954
We can't worship at the throne of an imaginary god and worship at the throne of the God of Scripture at the same time. When Christ reveals Himself to the sinner He always reveals Himself as the God of Scripture. To call an Arminain free will works religionist brother is to compromise the truth of God.
I beg to differ. It is to recognize that despite human error, God alone has the power to save. It would seem, that it has not crossed your thinking, that the work of coming to a perfect interpretation of all of Scripture (the interpretation you hold), is indeed a work, and a work you are involved in, because it requires learning and memory retention. I think I know how you will respond but I want to hear it...

So your contention is that we can start out with a false god and then by diligent study learn of the true God and be saved at the first? To be sure there is a whole lot more that I don’t know than what I do but what I know is truth. Have I been wrong? Sure I have. I was once Reformed. Calling an Arminian brother isn’t being compassionate toward their error it is assenting to their heresy. If you believe that they are saved then why even try to show them Calvinism? If you say in order to correct their error then you are assenting to what I said earlier about superior grace.

twin1954
The Scriptures know nothing of a superior grace that leads the ignorant into higher truth. What it teaches is a sovereign grace of which there is nothing higher. It knows nothing of inferior knowledge of Christ. It simpy says that eternal life is to know Him the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. John 17:3. To say that an Arminain is your brother is to say that you don't have to know God to be saved. Does that mean that you must have understanding in the doctrines of grace to be saved? Not at all. But the fact is that all who are saved know without a doubt that they had nothing to do with their salvation. And it is also a fact that all who are saved by the sovereign grace of God in Christ alone will not hate the truth of God when they hear it. You can't worship God and hate His truth.
Wait just a minute there...I will tell you firsthand, when I had an Arminian like understanding, I did not believe anything I did saved me. I would tell you straight up that I could not save myself, God saved me.

Ahh but what was it that you were really looking to? Did you secretly look back to when you accepted Jesus into your heart? No Arminian would come right out and say that they did something that saved them. They can’t because the Scriptures are too clear that salvation doesn’t come by works. But inwardly they are really trusting a decision they made or a prayer they prayed or an experience they had. They all look back to something and salvation isn’t looking back it is looking up. I can’t tell you how many times I have had an Arminian say to me that they know that they are saved because they remember when it happened.

What you are suggesting is a strawman. Even if non-Calvinists preach heavy on works, it does not necessarily conclude that they preach a works based salvation. One can preach salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone and still preach Christian duty, human responsibility. We have to be involved in Salvation to be saved, repentance is our duty, not God's. Read carefully, if I had NOTHING to do with my salvation, no involvement, then how is it that God the Holy Spirit raised ME to life? How is it that Christ gave ME saving faith? If I had nothing to do with my salvation...not only this, but particular redemption involves specific individuals. Yes, I had a part, my part was sin, Praise God for Jesus Christ died for my sins, and rose from the dead, so that I can have eternal life with Him.

Your Reformed theology is showing. Do you want to know how I preach duty and responsibility? I preach Christ and Him crucified. All believers are new creatures in Christ and do what comes naturally. Just as the old man of flesh does what comes naturally, sin, the new man seeks to honor and serve their Master. The more I hear of Him the more I love Him and the more I love Him the more I seek to serve Him. I just can’t help myself. I don’t need to told how to live I live. I don’t need to be told to repent I repent. I don’t need to be told to give or how much to give I give. Why? Because I want to. I never want to hear another sermon on duty or responsibility I want to hear of Christ. I want to hear who He is and what He has done for me. When Paul writes of practical things he always does so in the context of Christ and His person and work. If you know Him you love Him and if you love Him it will work out in practice.

 

[msortwell]

What does it mean when God says "they will all know me" ? The passage does not say believers are ignorant of who God is until some pious reformed theologian comes along. No, it says God teaches them this, not books, or calvinists. Im sorry if this is not your experience or the experience of free will proponents you know.

So I think I am beginning to see your perspective. You do not hold the position that a person must hold, or be able to articulate, a full-orbed Pauline argument for Sovereign Grace and all that might entail in order to be judged by you and yours to be a believer. They need only grasp God's Sovereignty to a level and with a clarity that aligns with the teachings of your denomination. They only need to "know Him" well enough to meet your standards.

 

[twin1954]

Let me clear up what some of you may be thinking and set something straight. I can call many Reformed folks brother though I am convinced that they are in error on many things. But I can't an Arminian because they aren't just in error they hold to damnable heresy. The Reformed worship God but the Amininan worships a false god.

 

[twin1954]

So I think I am beginning to see your perspective. You do not hold the position that a person must hold, or be able to articulate, a full-orbed Pauline argument for Sovereign Grace and all that might entail in order to be judged by you and yours to be a believer. They need only grasp God's Sovereignty to a level and with a clarity that aligns with the teachings of your denomination. They only need to "know Him" well enough to meet your standards.

How ridiculus can you possibly get? You love to put words in other peoples mouths don't you. Once more you are seeking to build a strawman that you think you can tear down. Can you know God and not know Him as God? That is the question you must answer.

 

[AndOne]

How ridiculus can you possibly get? You love to put words in other peoples mouths don't you. Once more you are seeking to build a strawman that you think you can tear down. Can you know God and not know Him as God? That is the question you must answer.

He wasn't talking to you....

 

[msortwell]

How ridiculus can you possibly get? You love to put words in other peoples mouths don't you. Once more you are seeking to build a strawman that you think you can tear down. Can you know God and not know Him as God? That is the question you must answer.

My words only appear ridiculous because I am paraphrasing your position without the vague declarations that you seem to believe substantiate or explain your position. Let's take for example the words you use above that are intended to make your point.

Can you know God and not know Him as God?

What does it mean to “know Him as God?” The question, standing alone, means nothing of substance. It must be explained. I suspect that you are referring to some essential attributes of God which must be understood for a person to be saved. Operating on that assumption, let’s look at the essential attributes of the God of the Bible.

In Chapter 6 of his book, “Summary of Christian Doctrine” Louis Berkhof offers the following attributes of God.

• The independence or self-existence of God.
• The immutability of God.
• The infinity of God.
• The simplicity of God. By ascribing simplicity to God we mean that He is not composed of various parts, such as the body and soul in man, and for that very reason is not subject to division.
• The knowledge of (possessed by) God. This is that perfection of God whereby He, in a manner all His own, knows Himself and all things possible and actual.
• The wisdom of God. God's wisdom is an aspect of His knowledge.
• The goodness of God. God is good, that is, perfectly holy.
• The love of God. This is often called the most central attribute of God, but it is doubtful whether it should be regarded as more central than the other perfections of God.
• The righteousness of God. The righteousness of God is that perfection by which He maintains Himself as the Holy One over against every violation of His holiness.
• The veracity of God.
• The sovereignty of God. This may be considered from two different points of view, namely, His sovereign will, and His sovereign power.

Assuming Mr. Berkhof’s list to be a reasonable starting point regarding what God has revealed to us about Himself . . . which of these attributes will a person know if he is a true believer (albeit a recently converted new believer)?

To what extent must these attributes be known?

Is His sovereignty weighed more heavily in this determination than other attributes, and if so, based upon what Scripture?

If they can list them is that enough?

Perhaps they must be able to list some but be able to describe others?

 

[the particular baptist]

I am curious, what do you say to the charge that Mr Gill was a Hyper? I am not making the charge (though I suspect it's based on his book "The Cause of God and Truth"), merely fishing for your thoughts.

Mr Gill was certainly not hyper. That is a tag Fullerites gave him because he denied duty faith. His congregation grew several times over from his evangelistic proclamation of the gospel.

I've met some American Primitive Baptists that believe and teach that the gospel is to be proclaimed in churches only and God will save His elect without any knowledge of the gospel or Christ. That is hyper-calvinism. Note that not all Primitive Baptists believe this, but a good portion of them do today.

 

[the particular baptist]

So I think I am beginning to see your perspective. You do not hold the position that a person must hold, or be able to articulate, a full-orbed Pauline argument for Sovereign Grace and all that might entail in order to be judged by you and yours to be a believer. They need only grasp God's Sovereignty to a level and with a clarity that aligns with the teachings of your denomination. They only need to "know Him" well enough to meet your standards.

C'mon Mr msortwell, strawman. I thought you were above sarcasm as well

 

[the particular baptist]

There is more than a grain of truth I am afraid. The whole non-Calvinist approach to worship is man centered and therefore focused on the will of man. They preach sermons intended to make men do something: pray, read, give and live. Their approach to the gospel is God has done His part and now you must do yours.

It is no strawman at all. I am not the least bit concerned with whether anyone knows what Calvinism or Arminianism is. I use those terms because I am speaking to folks who supposedly do know the difference. While it is true that you can love God and His sovereign grace and not know that it is Calvinist to do so it isn’t possible to love God and hate His truth. I am not concerned with their inconsistencies, that is just a matter of theology, I am concerned with who it is they worship.

The thief knew one thing needful, Christ is the Lord God. He got it by revelation the same as all believers do. Sure you can read the Scriptures and know all the facts about God according to the Scriptures but to know Him comes only by revelation. Matt. 11:27.16:17,John 6:44-46, Gal. 1:16 And no I am not promoting a Gnostic form of knowledge. It doesn’t come from out of the blue apart from the Scriptures but it is much more than just a mental assent to things it is Christ in you the hope of glory.

You can hear the Gospel all your life and be as religious as they come and not know Christ until He is revealed in the heart by the Spirit. Until then all you knowledge is useless. I was a dead Calvinist most of my life. I had all the theology and doctrine a man could desire and preached it. But I didn’t know Christ. Then one day Christ revealed Himself to me and in me by three little words, Christ is all.
You read into what I said that which is not there. I never said that you aren’t saved I said that you weren’t saved as an Arminian. But changing theologies is not salvation. If all you have done is change theologies then you still aren’t saved. But if you have changed the God you worship thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift. I fear that many Calvinists are just as dead as I was for all those years because they have superior grace that gives them superior knowledge but they have nothing else.

The Arminian can be their brother because they haven’t gotten that superior grace yet. That is why so many work very hard to make Calvinists out of folks. They want them to have that superior knowledge. I never try to make anyone a Calvinist I seek for them to know Christ.
Yet there is no salvation apart from knowledge. Rom. 10:14You can’t believe in someone whom you don’t know. Paul sought to know Christ and be fond in Him. Phil. 3:10

So your contention is that we can start out with a false god and then by diligent study learn of the true God and be saved at the first? To be sure there is a whole lot more that I don’t know than what I do but what I know is truth. Have I been wrong? Sure I have. I was once Reformed. Calling an Arminian brother isn’t being compassionate toward their error it is assenting to their heresy.

If you believe that they are saved then why even try to show them Calvinism? If you say in order to correct their error then you are assenting to what I said earlier about superior grace.

Ahh but what was it that you were really looking to? Did you secretly look back to when you accepted Jesus into your heart? No Arminian would come right out and say that they did something that saved them.

They can’t because the Scriptures are too clear that salvation doesn’t come by works. But inwardly they are really trusting a decision they made or a prayer they prayed or an experience they had.

They all look back to something and salvation isn’t looking back it is looking up. I can’t tell you how many times I have had an Arminian say to me that they know that they are saved because they remember when it happened. Your Reformed theology is showing. Do you want to know how I preach duty and responsibility?

I preach Christ and Him crucified. All believers are new creatures in Christ and do what comes naturally. Just as the old man of flesh does what comes naturally, sin, the new man seeks to honor and serve their Master. The more I hear of Him the more I love Him and the more I love Him the more I seek to serve Him. I just can’t help myself.

I don’t need to told how to live I live. I don’t need to be told to repent I repent. I don’t need to be told to give or how much to give I give. Why? Because I want to. I never want to hear another sermon on duty or responsibility I want to hear of Christ. I want to hear who He is and what He has done for me. When Paul writes of practical things he always does so in the context of Christ and His person and work. If you know Him you love Him and if you love Him it will work out in practice.

What he ^ said

 

[the particular baptist]

He wasn't talking to you....

I think he knows that BB. He sees the strawman too.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I've lost track of what is going on in this thread.

 

[Faith.Man]

I've lost track of what is going on in this thread.

Yeah, me too!

 

[msortwell]

I've lost track of what is going on in this thread.

A bunch of folks that share a high view of God's Sovereign Grace are debating about whether or not a certain group (Arminians) with whom that all disagree, are too wrong to be saved.

Glad I could help.

 

[twin1954]

He wasn't talking to you....

But I was talking to him.

 

[twin1954]

My words only appear ridiculous because I am paraphrasing your position without the vague declarations that you seem to believe substantiate or explain your position. Let's take for example the words you use above that are intended to make your point.


What does it mean to “know Him as God?” The question, standing alone, means nothing of substance. It must be explained. I suspect that you are referring to some essential attributes of God which must be understood for a person to be saved. Operating on that assumption, let’s look at the essential attributes of the God of the Bible.

In Chapter 6 of his book, “Summary of Christian Doctrine” Louis Berkhof offers the following attributes of God.

• The independence or self-existence of God.
• The immutability of God.
• The infinity of God.
• The simplicity of God. By ascribing simplicity to God we mean that He is not composed of various parts, such as the body and soul in man, and for that very reason is not subject to division.
• The knowledge of (possessed by) God. This is that perfection of God whereby He, in a manner all His own, knows Himself and all things possible and actual.
• The wisdom of God. God's wisdom is an aspect of His knowledge.
• The goodness of God. God is good, that is, perfectly holy.
• The love of God. This is often called the most central attribute of God, but it is doubtful whether it should be regarded as more central than the other perfections of God.
• The righteousness of God. The righteousness of God is that perfection by which He maintains Himself as the Holy One over against every violation of His holiness.
• The veracity of God.
• The sovereignty of God. This may be considered from two different points of view, namely, His sovereign will, and His sovereign power.

Assuming Mr. Berkhof’s list to be a reasonable starting point regarding what God has revealed to us about Himself . . . which of these attributes will a person know if he is a true believer (albeit a recently converted new believer)?

To what extent must these attributes be known?

Is His sovereignty weighed more heavily in this determination than other attributes, and if so, based upon what Scripture?

If they can list them is that enough?

Perhaps they must be able to list some but be able to describe others?

You are not paraphrasing you are twisting in order to make what I have said to seem foolish. So far you have built strawmen, put words in my mouth, made accusations that I do not agree with the book of Romans and now you are blowing smoke so that it seems my point is vague. There is nothing vague about what I have said. You don't have a problem grasping it you have a problem refuting it. That is why you have been doing so much dancing. Obviously you are not going to admit the truth for whatever reason and I am not going to back away from my stand on the truth. I am not going to agree to disagree I am just tired of the dance. Either answer my posts with a direct response or give up.

 

[the particular baptist]

A bunch of folks that share a high view of God's Sovereign Grace are debating about whether or not a certain group (Arminians) with whom that all disagree, are too wrong to be saved.

If they are, so are Russellites, Cambellites, Mormons, and Papists. Throw in some Mohammedans for good measure. Same difference.

 

[msortwell]

You are not paraphrasing you are twisting in order to make what I have said to seem foolish. So far you have built strawmen, put words in my mouth, made accusations that I do not agree with the book of Romans and now you are blowing smoke so that it seems my point is vague. There is nothing vague about what I have said. You don't have a problem grasping it you have a problem refuting it. That is why you have been doing so much dancing. Obviously you are not going to admit the truth for whatever reason and I am not going to back away from my stand on the truth. I am not going to agree to disagree I am just tired of the dance. Either answer my posts with a direct response or give up.

I must apologize, I believed I was addressing the questions (and some of the assertions) that you offered. I do have to admit that I neglected answering some, when it seemed that you had gone into the preaching mode and were using questions more to prod thought than to elicit a response.

However, to avoid mis-categorizing the questions, I will try to answer each or direct you to where the answer was provided./B]

Originally Posted by msortwell
Col 2:23, Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. KJV

The verse you are citing refers to worship/religion that has its motivation within the self. It does not refer to the worship of the will, as it is being used by some here.

Col 2:23
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. NKJV​

If that is the case it speaks more to Reformed theology then doesn't it? Well it actuallly can be properly interpreted with either usage. Either way is fine with me because it still fits.

I didn’t really think it was necessary for me to answer this one, but . . . No I don’t believe that my understanding of Scripture (Reformed) can be accurately described as “self-imposed” or “will worship.”

And again, to read this particular verse as one specifically condemning those who lack an accurate understanding of a monergistic regeneration (i.e., a religion/worship that exalts the will of man) demonstrates the failure to properly apply a valid hermeneutic.

What either way fits with, is your personal theology. However, I suspect that you generally try to fit your theology to Scripture and not vice versa, as you seem inclined to do in this particular instance.

Originally Posted by msortwell
Well . . . if you ever make it to glory you'll have to inform Paul that the letter he wrote to the church in Rome was a complete waste of time, after all, being part of the church they would, based upon your theology, have already understood all of the facets of God's redemptive work in the hearts of His elect.

Of course, that still leaves the question regarding why such an ill conceived letter managed to find its way into the cannon of Scripture.

Pure nonsense, after its kind.​

Whare is anything I said inconsistent with the book of Romans? Show me please if you can. You have actually only avioded a direct answer because you can't answer. What other conclusion can I come to?

See the direct response to your question in Post 135. The gist of that response was demonstrating that much of Holy Writ includes instruction to believers (epistles to churches) explaining and expounding upon God’s sovereignty. The intent was to indicate that the authors seemed to believe that these churches (presumably believers) lacked an understanding of God’s sovereignty that you and yours seem to assert is immediately understood by any that come to saving faith.

Is there any other God than the one revealed in the Scriptures?

None that we are supposed to worship only false gods.

Does God reveal Himself to a sinner as anything less than God?

I believe that would be a no.

But we ought not to confuse this with the question, ‘Does God fully reveal all that God is to a sinner?” That question would also be answered ‘no’.

And of course you didn't deal with the simple question of whether you can love God and hate His truth.

Can a man love God and hate His truth? No, it does not seem likely. But can a man love God and hate some twisted perversion of His truth? Absolutely. Most Arminians condemn a caricature of Calvinistic thought and NOT the true theological position. The best example is the Anti-Calvinist viewpoint presented by Mr. Hunt in the book “Debating Calvinism.” His attacks have nothing to do with God’s truth, they have only to do with Mr. Hunt’s profoundly damaged interpretation of a Calvinist’s interpretation of God’s truth.

Oh, not that you asked, but I want to mention that someone claiming to hold to an Arminian theology is not sufficient evidence for me to judge them to be a believer, similar to those who might claim to be Calvinists or Primitive Baptists
.
I will not bother responding to your nonsense because it has nothing to do with anything I have posited. Saving knowledge of God isn't complete knowledge of God but it is knowledge of God as God. As you read the Scriptures what is the very first thing God always reveals about Himself?

Which is precisely why I posted my most recent response before this one, listing numerous attributes of God. In practice, you have place a high view of God’s Sovereignty (a Calvinist-like view) as an aspect of God’s character that you hold as a litmus test for testing genuine faith – a litmus test that is NOT expressly stated in Scripture. The Scripture to which you have pointed is general in nature - the text that asserts that those under the new covenant will “know God.” I am confident that we agree that the meaning is not that they will know God perfectly or completely. But what you have not explained yet is why Sovereignty is special among His attributes or the manner in which His other attributes are considered.

May I add that there are those who might even consider themselves more “Calvinistic” than Arminian that have such a weak understanding of God’s sovereignty that I DOES give me concerns that they are likely not believers. For example . . . I have hear those professing to be believers to assert, “If God would ______________________ then I would be no follower of His.” WOW! Now THAT demonstrates a lack of regard for God’s sovereignty that undermines the credibility of anything else an individual might offer as evidence of their faith.

It is that He is God and there is none else. He can save or He can damn as He pleases. Every saved sinner knows at least that much. If that is not the sovereignty of God what is?

And every informed Arminian (not a Pelagian in Arminian clothing) would say amen. It is not about what God CAN do where we have our disagreement with the Arminians it is about what He determines to do that is the focus of the conflicts. We believe that God has determined to sovereignly save some. They believe that He has sovereignly determined to give many the opportunity to be saved.

They generally assert that God WOULD NOT do ‘x’ not that He COULD NOT do ‘x.’
Is it possible to believe in a God of whom you have never heard? Rom. 10:14.
They cannot believe in the true God unless they have heard of Him. Men are fully capable of conjuring up the own “gods” from within their own lustful imaginations.

Is the god of the Arminain God?

I believe that some professing Arminians worship the true God. I do not believe that ANY Arminians have a true view of the God that they worship. Likewise, I know that no Calvinists have a perfect understanding of their God, and many (all?) likely have a flawed understanding of God.

Not at all. The pygmy god of Arminianism is a figment of men's imaginations and is no more able to save than a knat can. Does God desire anything that He can't have?

The answer is likely affected by what sense in which we are considering God’s “desiring” something. We know that Christ, when He walked in the flesh had desired, in some sense, to have embraced the children of Jerusalem, but had not done so because they were not willing. Still, that does NOT speak directly regarding God the Father. But God is able to accomplish whatsoever He determines to do. Again where the Arminian errs in my opinion is not regarding what God is ABLE to do, but is in regard to what God is WILLING to do – generally in relationship to saving some and not others.

The Arminian god does.

No. The Arminian God takes actions that He knows will not, from our perspective, accomplish anything. The Arminian believes that a man cannot accept as truth the gospel of Jesus Christ, unless the Spirit of God does a work in their heart. However, they believe that the work done in the heart does not necessarily bring the man to a point where salvation will occur. When cornered the Arminian WILL NOT say that God cannot sovereignly save (as we understand salvation to actually occur) rather, they assert that God chooses NOT so save sovereignly. While theirs is not a biblically accurate understanding of how God saves it is NOT the false model that you so glibly set up and knock down.

Is there anything God wants that He can't bring about? That is the god of Arminianism.

As previously explained, the Arminian sees the issue related to God’s choice NOT His ability.

If I preach to a sinner a god who wants to save but can't because he will not violate your free will am I preaching the one true God whom to know is life eternal?

This is not the God preached by genuine Arminians. Again, the Arminian does not speak to whether or not God CAN save as we understand He saves. The Arminian holds that God will not, or would not, save in the manner described by Calvinists. They are mistaken, but not in the way you continue to assert.

How ridiculus can you possibly get? You love to put words in other peoples mouths don't you. Once more you are seeking to build a strawman that you think you can tear down.

I can get pretty ridiculous. Those who read these exchanges will decide which “side” of this argument is being ridiculous or not.

Some seem to be intimating that both sides are losing their grip. I am NOT putting words into your mouth. I may at times paraphrase what I believe you are asserting. At other times I will draw what I believe you are saying to its next logical conclusion (that may be where you see the ridiculousness).

Can you know God and not know Him as God? That is the question you must answer.
I cannot answer the question until I understand what you mean.

That is why I provided my recent post listing the attributes of God. “Knowing God as God” lacks precision - so much so that any answer provided would be equally void of meaning.

Respond to that post with something of substance and we can continue.

I thinks that's all of your questions. Let me know if I missed any.

 

[JustAsIam77]

I resonate with Muller.

Quite a good read, thanks brother.