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.
Where did I refer to you in the post?I've been simply explaining that the Calvinistic understanding of 'Reformed' is not accurate when it comes to understand the breadth of what Reformed means. However, if you don't like my labelling my position as Reformed Arminian, I'm happy for you to call my position that of Classical Arminianism. However, it is still a Reformed position as Arminius had a foundational influence on his followers, called Remonstrants.
However, when Arminius remained a Dutch Reformed minister until his death, his position was still within the Reformed perspective of his day - even though his views were challenged by those of Calvinistic persuasion.
I object strongly to your pejorative comment a referring to my use of language: 'That is an old RC trick. They use words but mean something different by them'. That is disingenuous to use that kind of language against me. I have excellent reasons for labelling my position as Reformed Arminian. It is NOT redefining terms. It is using terms consistent with those used by Jacobus Arminius.
Oz
PrincetonGuy,
I think the problem between you and me is that you want me to see Arminius's Total Depravity through what you think is a Calvinistic understanding.
I've presented evidence from Arminius to demonstrate that he did believe in Total Depravity, but that's not good enough for you.
I have studied this subject extensively ….
Let's call on the expert advice of a Southern Baptist professor of theology and an Arminian who teaches at George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX, Dr Roger E Olson. In his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006) he wrote:Some Reformed critics of Arminianism admit they share significant common ground with it. "Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, every aspect of human nature is tainted by sin". [1]
[1] Here Olson was citing Robert A Peterson & Michael D Williams, Why I am not an Arminian (IVP 2004:163), in Olson (2006:56, n 28).
Classical Arminians are relieved to find some Calvinists finally understanding and admitting this Arminian commitment to total depravity! [2] Arminius's own account of human fallenness could hardly be stronger if he had been a full-blown Calvinist! In his "Public Disputations" the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam's fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and thatIn this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatum]; but it is also imprisoned [captivatum], destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. [3]
This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will survived the Fall intact (Olson 2006:56).
My view is parallel with that of Dr Roger Olson concerning the Arminian support of Total Depravity.
Why don't you call Dr Roger Olson, an Arminian and professor of theology at George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, and try your line, 'It is too difficult to discuss this issue with a man that has not studied it'.
One last question are all Pentecostal Churches Arminian? Do they all believe in falling from grace?
Classical Arminianism comes from the teaching of a man named Jacob Arminus. He lived in the late 1500"s to early 1600's. He was a Dutch seminary professor. His followers, after his death, came up with what is known as the Remontrances, five points that they believed were essential. They submitted it to the State of Holland. There was a council held to consider these thing called the Synod of Dort. The Synod of Dort came up with an answer which later became known as TULIP or the five points of Calvinism. JLR 1300 has pretty much given you the five points of the Remonstrances. Suffice to say that neither Arminus nor Calvin came up with either.
Later John Wesley revised the theology of Arminianism into his own theology which is what prevails today. Few today are Classical Arminians but more Wesleyan Arminians.
Now I must refer you to the fact that there is a difference between modern Arminianism and full Pelagianism. While Wesley was what is known as a semi-pelagian full Pelaginism is making inroads into modern theology.
You might want to do a little research into each of these theologies if you are really interested in understanding the differences.
No, I am NOT confusing the holiness movement, in which the Pentecostal movement blossomed, with various teachings of Christian perfectionism. B.B. Warfield and his cronies were NOT professors at Princeton University and they were NOT qualified to teach there! They taught at what is now Princeton Theological Seminary, an institution independent of Princeton University. With their departure, the Seminary grew from a third-rate school into one of the finest seminaries in the world. The truth is the truth whether it is labeled by some as conservative, liberal, or heretical.
I'm rather confused how you come to the conclusion that RC has changed for the better, or maybe I'm skewing your statements. Do you believe you hold to the same doctrines as Roman Catholic church to the point where you believe Roman Catholic Doctrine is something Arminians should value?The Roman Catholic Church and her teachings have greatly changed since the days of Martin Luther when the Church was in a state of sordid decay. Indeed, unlike the Protestant Reformation that was not a reformation at all but a cataclysmic upheaval that shattered the church into countless pieces, the Roman Catholic Church has recently reformed itself by returning to the study of the Bible in the original languages. This return to the original languages was spearheaded on September 30, 1943, by Pope Pius XII when he issued his encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu . The consequence of this return can be seen, for example, by comparing the only two Roman Catholic commentaries in English on the Greek text of Pauls Epistle to Romansthe commentary by Patrick Boylan published in 1934, and the commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer published in 1993. Among the other changes in Roman Catholic soteriology due to this new emphasis on the Greek text of Romans (as opposed to the text in the Latin Vulgate) is the shift from the concept of the justice of God to the concept of the righteousness of Godand not just conceptually, but practically in the life of the believer.
The doctrine of Total Depravity IS a Calvinist doctrine.
I attended 3 Pentecostal colleges - one for the AoG Australia and the other A/G USA; the third was a Pentecostal Assembles of Canada college. All 3 colleges in their theology departments had teachers/professors who taught that it was possible to fall from grace and lose one's salvation.
Oz
'An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism' that includes Total Depravity on the Society of Evangelical Arminians' website indicates your assessment is wrong. It is both a Calvinist and Arminian doctrine.
*AD ROMANOS
7:14-25
Rom 7:14 scimus enim quod lex spiritalis est ego autem carnalis sum venundatus sub peccato
Rom 7:15 quod enim operor non intellego non enim quod volo hoc ago sed quod odi illud facio
Rom 7:16 si autem quod nolo illud facio consentio legi quoniam bona
Rom 7:17 nunc autem iam non ego operor illud sed quod habitat in me peccatum
Rom 7:18 scio enim quia non habitat in me hoc est in carne mea bonum nam velle adiacet mihi perficere autem bonum non invenio
Rom 7:19 non enim quod volo bonum hoc facio sed quod nolo malum hoc ago
Rom 7:20 si autem quod nolo illud facio non ego operor illud sed quod habitat in me peccatum
Rom 7:21 invenio igitur legem volenti mihi facere bonum quoniam mihi malum adiacet
Rom 7:22 condelector enim legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem
Rom 7:23 video autem aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae et captivantem me in lege peccati quae est in membris meis
Rom 7:24 infelix ego homo quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius
Rom 7:25 gratia Dei per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum igitur ego ipse mente servio legi Dei carne autem legi peccati __________________
Calvin (see his commentary on Romans) saw so much good in the man in Romans 7:14-25* that he not only concluded that the man was NOT totally depraved, but that he was a mature, born-again Christianand not just any mature, born-again Christian, but the Apostle Paul himself!
PrincetonGuy,
Who are you trying to impress?
Oh! Now I believe that I understand the reason for your question—you did not understand why I quoted Rom. 7:14-25 from the Latin Vulgate. I quoted it from the Latin Vulgate because it is the version that both Arminius and Calvin had before them when they read and taught on Romans 7. They read the exact same words in Latin, but Calvin saw in those Latin words a description of the Apostle while in the state he was in at the time he wrote the words, while Arminius saw in those very same Latin words a description of a severely (but not totally) depraved, unregenerate Jew striving unsuccessfully to keep the Law. They both interpreted the passage largely upon their understanding of the depravity of an unregenerate man; and because their understanding of the depravity of an unregenerate man differed so greatly, their interpretations were 180 degrees different from each other.
The Latin words that they interpreted so very differently were the words condelector and interiorem hominem in verse 22. The problem was not that they disagreed on the meaning of the Latin; the problem was that they disagreed concerning the concepts that Paul was attempting to express in the underling Greek words (συνήδομαι and ἔσω ἄνθρωπος respectively). Moreover, and more importantly, they disagreed as to whether these concepts pertained to a born-again Christian—or to an unregenerate man. That is, they disagreed as to the nature and the severity of the depravity in an unregenerate man—and they disagreed so severely that they respectively saw the man in Romans 7:14-25 at the opposite ends of the spectrum of regeneration—and Calvinist and Arminian scholars of Romans still do today.
I do not recall such a thing myself, but what does that have to do with anything that I have posted in this thread?I don't recall anyone claiming Calvin believed no one was depraved.
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?