Why do Arminians...

[stan1953]

I call myself a Calvinist for easy reference. It's easier than saying "I'm a Christian who believes that man is radically depraved, that God elects unconditionally, that the atonement was limited to to those elect, that's there's an effectual call, and that God's saints will persevere to the end".

That's a mouthful. I'm not a Calvinist in the sense you think it means because I don't follow John Calvin any more than you follow men that you read. In fact, I've read very little of Calvin. So you can just refer to me as a monergist. I prefer that.

Exactly my point...why refer to a man for your beliefs? Do you think there were ANY Calvinists prior to Calvin himself?
We know what Calvinists believe and despite your protestation to the contrary, you follow man made doctrine.

I also find it odd that you believe in an effectual call but not effectual death.

 

[OzSpen]

I've yet to see one who doesn't.

This was your reply to my question:

So are you saying that Arminians = synergists = those who practice eisegesis?
​

I beg your pardon. I, as a Reformed Arminian, do my best to be faithful in exegesis to the biblical text. My conclusions in some areas are different from yours, but that does not make me a perpetrator of eisegesis. It means that you and I reach different hermeneutical conclusions.

Your answer here wants to place Calvinism in the upper echelon of biblical exegesis while you trod Arminians down to eisegesis. That's your idiosyncratic action. I don't buy it. It is not what I practise in my exegesis. It is you who is making a false claim in relation to my Reformed Arminianism.

I'm concluding in soteriology as a Reformed Arminian because of exegesis, not eisegesis.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

It describes Paul as well, for his answer to the jailer, who asked what he MUST DO to be saved. And Paul commanded him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he would be saved.

Man believes, and God saves. 1 Cor 1:21

Does man's believing help God to save him? No, that is a red herring.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.

 

[Hammster]

Then what were you pointing out?

That the synergists I encounter all use eisegesis.

 

[Hammster]

The difference between an election and a simple choice.

Are all choices an election? Yes or no.

We know that all elections involve choice.

You aren't answering the question. What are the definitions of the two words that makes you think they are different?

 

[Hammster]

I'd love to see any verse that actually says any of this.

Non sequitur.

 

[OzSpen]

Exactly my point...why refer to a man for your beliefs? Do you think there were ANY Calvinists prior to Calvin himself?
We know what Calvinists believe and despite your protestation to the contrary, you follow man made doctrine.

I also find it odd that you believe in an effectual call but not effectual death.

Stan,

I'm as guilty as Hamm because he uses Calvin and I use Arminius, but they are losing their helpfulness in theological discussion because there are various shades of meaning of these two groups, which dominate Christendom.

As I read your words, the thought occurred to me that Calvinists and Arminians are violating the very thing that Paul warned the Corinthians against:

I appeal to you, brothers [and sisters] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarrelling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul”, or “I follow Apollos”, or “I follow Cephas”, or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power (1 Cor 1:10-17 ESV).

I have been convicted now that I should not be using the label 'Arminian' as I'm following the very thing that Scripture opposes, 'I follow Apollos' etc.

This means that we throw away the labels of synergism, monergism, Calvinism and Arminianism. However, that is not going to be easy after so many centuries of its practice. There are still Augustinians today.

This is a call to all of us to honestly deal with the exegesis of the text and not use labelling anymore.

Am I on track or not?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

Exactly my point...why refer to a man for your beliefs? Do you think there were ANY Calvinists prior to Calvin himself?
We know what Calvinists believe and despite your protestation to the contrary, you follow man made doctrine.

I also find it odd that you believe in an effectual call but not effectual death.

It's obvious that you either didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it.

 

[Hammster]

This was your reply to my question:

So are you saying that Arminians = synergists = those who practice eisegesis?
​

I beg your pardon. I, as a Reformed Arminian, do my best to be faithful in exegesis to the biblical text. My conclusions in some areas are different from yours, but that does not make me a perpetrator of eisegesis. It means that you and I reach different hermeneutical conclusions.

Your answer here wants to place Calvinism in the upper echelon of biblical exegesis while you trod Arminians down to eisegesis. That's your idiosyncratic action. I don't buy it. It is not what I practise in my exegesis. It is you who is making a false claim in relation to my Reformed Arminianism.

I'm concluding in soteriology as a Reformed Arminian because of exegesis, not eisegesis.

Oz

I in no way meant that you did so intentionally.

 

[Hammster]

Stan,

I'm as guilty as Hamm because he uses Calvin and I use Arminius, but they are losing their helpfulness in theological discussion because there are various shades of meaning of these two groups, which dominate Christendom.

As I read your words, the thought occurred to me that Calvinists and Arminians are violating the very thing that Paul warned the Corinthians against:

I have been convicted now that I should not be using the label 'Arminian' as I'm following the very thing that Scripture opposes, 'I follow Apollos' etc.

This means that we throw away the labels of synergism, monergism, Calvinism and Arminianism. However, that is not going to be easy after so many centuries of its practice. There are still Augustinians today.

This is a call to all of us to honestly deal with the exegesis of the text and not use labelling anymore.

Am I on track or not?

Oz

I don't think that's what Paul had in mind. You and I are doing our best to follow God's word. I can't speak for you on this, but I in no way follow Calvin. He's just the one who systematized what I do believe.

 

[stan1953]

That the synergists I encounter all use eisegesis.

Which is exactly why I said there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.
It also means you accuse me of doing so and IF that is the case, then refute me or exegete the scripture properly. Being dismissive and charging a group of people with that, means absolutely nothing.
Another reason why I don't define myself with a label, as I don't read scripture in an eisegetical manner. Sadly I cannot say the same thing for most of those that espouse Calvinism./Monergism.
The five points of T.U.L.I.P. is very well known and supported within RT, but I doubt many of those that are labeled Arminian, know anything about the Five Articles of the Remonstrance. I don't.

 

[stan1953]

Stan,

I'm as guilty as Hamm because he uses Calvin and I use Arminius, but they are losing their helpfulness in theological discussion because there are various shades of meaning of these two groups, which dominate Christendom.

As I read your words, the thought occurred to me that Calvinists and Arminians are violating the very thing that Paul warned the Corinthians against:

I have been convicted now that I should not be using the label 'Arminian' as I'm following the very thing that Scripture opposes, 'I follow Apollos' etc.

This means that we throw away the labels of synergism, monergism, Calvinism and Arminianism. However, that is not going to be easy after so many centuries of its practice. There are still Augustinians today.

This is a call to all of us to honestly deal with the exegesis of the text and not use labelling anymore.

Am I on track or not?

Oz

Yes, and succinctly. Labels tend to define and enforce misconceptions or prejudice. We should ALL just refer to what the Bible says and "rightly divide it".

 

[stan1953]

It's obvious that you either didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it.

Again with dismissive assertions. I did indeed read AND understand, and you received my feedback.

 

[Hammster]

Which is exactly why I said there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.
It also means you accuse me of doing so and IF that is the case, then refute me or exegete the scripture properly. Being dismissive and charging a group of people with that, means absolutely nothing.
Another reason why I don't define myself with a label, as I don't read scripture in an eisegetical manner. Sadly I cannot say the same thing for most of those that espouse Calvinism./Monergism.
The five points of T.U.L.I.P. is very well known and supported within RT, but I doubt many of those that are labeled Arminian, know anything about the Five Articles of the Remonstrance. I don't.

There have been a couple of times recently where you posted scripture thinking it proved a point. I think it was discussing receiving and gifts. I went through and dealt with every verse. There was never any response back from you.

 

[stan1953]

I don't think that's what Paul had in mind. You and I are doing our best to follow God's word. I can't speak for you on this, but I in no way follow Calvin. He's just the one who systematized what I do believe.

and you expect us to believe you did not grow up in a Calvinist environment, learning how the Bible supported Calvinism?

 

[Hammster]

Again with dismissive assertions. I did indeed read AND understand, and you received my feedback.

Your feedback ignored what I said, then. I'm not sure why you'd do that.

 

[Hammster]

and you expect us to believe you did not grow up in a Calvinist environment, learning how the Bible supported Calvinism?

No, I didn't. I can prove it if you'd like.

 

[stan1953]

There have been a couple of times recently where you posted scripture thinking it proved a point. I think it was discussing receiving and gifts. I went through and dealt with every verse. There was never any response back from you.

I always answer, so obviously you missed them or lost interest.

Writing "not applicable", or "that word is not there", are not valid responses, nor proper exegesis. That type of rhetoric does not convince anyone, so why should I bother responding. Make a valid effort and I will be more than happy to respond in like manner.

 

[stan1953]

No, I didn't. I can prove it if you'd like.

Sure, go ahead and prove you were not influenced by the Calvinistic doctrine.

 

[stan1953]

Your feedback ignored what I said, then. I'm not sure why you'd do that.

My feedback addressed EXACTLY what you said.