Looking for a Traditional Evangelical Arminian Systematic Theology ...

Page 2 of 3 (49 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 48 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 6:42 AM

What is a moderate Calvinist? The term seems entirely unhelpful and even your expounding of "moderate" Calvinism by TULIP is ambiguous.

For example, do you understand "perseverance" to mean that a true saint will not finally and fully fall away from the faith, but that "This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened..." and that "although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance." If you affirm this, then you believe in the historical and normal sense of "Perseverance of the Saints" and there is no reason to "oppose" it in favor of something called "preservation," which we may equate with "easy believism". 

Or one may ask what you mean by regeneration being subsequent to faith and who the Reformed persons are who hold to this? We already discussed this issue in another thread. It is admitted that Calvin did not use the term "regeneration" in any single sense and that he in fact affirms that what is today referred to by "regeneration" must precede faith. See, for example, where he states "It thus appears that none can enter the kingdom of God save those whose minds have been renewed by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit" (ICR II.ii.20). 

So are these "moderate" Calvinists really just promoting a "new" Calvinism? If so, why not avoid confusion by calling it something new, that would not so easily lead to confusion.

Some people may consider themselves "moderate" Calvinists because they reject Limited Atonement. Conversely, a person may consider themselves "moderate" Calvinist because they aren't sure about a lot of the details, but think God ultimately predestines certain persons to eternal life. So the term is simply too ambiguous to be of any use and it creates even more ambiguity when one asks what we should label those to the "right" of the "moderate" Calvinists. Are they "hyper-Calvinists"? If so, what does this mean? Are they "extreme" Calvinists? Again, exactly what does this designate?

(The terms "Calvinism" and "hyper-Calvinism" already have an established or (historically) codified usage that we should not rework simply to make the view more rhetorically palatable for some. If some small group is under the impression that a hyper-Calvinist is anyone who affirms the five doctrines in TULIP, then we should simply correct their mistaken belief rather than concoct some other term based upon a misunderstanding.)

Those who simply reject Limited Atonement do us a favor by going by the historical usage of Amyraldians rather than "moderate" or "soft" or some other ambiguous qualifier. I would suggest "moderate" Calvinists have the same courtesy. 

The point in one's using language should always be to communicate clearly. We should seek to be precise and avoid confusion as far as possible. Unfortunately, it is popular in today's culture to use language ambiguously to pacify or placate. Where there is an established historical usage we should use those terms in accordance with it and where there is not we should not muddy the waters by ambiguous qualifiers.

 

P.S. I might add, Bryan, that it seems the doctrines of TULIP as you expound them (if I understand you correctly) could easily be shown logically inconsistent. But I suppose that this isn't the place to debate that.

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 6:53 AM

Bryan Brodess:

Blair Laird:

LOL">

New Category....

 

lol what am I?

 

An Arminian who believes in eternal security.

 

or a moderate who believes God chose, or elected us  based on his foreknowledge of who whould freely recieve his gift, or who would freely reject his gift..

 

Tongue Tied

 

I must be in a temporal purgatory..lol

 

Rather, if I may say so politely, you may simply be confused as to what Calvinism teaches as opposed to Arminianism and those who call themselves "biblicists."

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 7:05 AM

John Bowling:

Rather, if I may say so politely, you may simply be confused as to what Calvinism teaches as opposed to Arminianism and those who call themselves "biblicists."

 

No I am not confused. I do not understand why a true calvanist believes in regeneration before faith.. or on what basis God would chose one person over another person.  But I know what it means.

 

I do not believe in this any more than I believe someone can "sin" there way out of heaven. for this would mean salvation is not a gift given through grace ( unmerited) but a prize that is earned through the work of obeying a set of laws.

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 7:11 AM

John Bowling:

P.S. I might add, Bryan, that it seems the doctrines of TULIP as you expound them (if I understand you correctly) could easily be shown logically inconsistent. But I suppose that this isn't the place to debate that.

 

As for what you posted before this, I would love to speak about this further in Blair's thread,, this is not the place to discuss this. Just let me know

 

as for this comment

 

I think it might be that these are the two most "reformed" theologies, your either one or the other.

 

Arminianism, since they do not believe in eternal security. many probably wonder if they are even truly saved,, so do not even want to associate with this group.. Calvanism, on the other hand,, I doubt many question whether they are saved,, just how they arived at their faith., So those who differ on some points would rather associate themselves with people they consider brothers, as apposed to people they wonder if they are even brothers..

 

if this even makes sense..

 

and this is purely a simple guess as to why people consider themselves moderate calvin as apposed to moderate arminian..

 

Posts 1469
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 7:47 AM

Lol, yeah moderate calvinists believe that God does not choose us because we chose him, but that he chooses us based on his decision not ours. Soley out of his grace and mercy he chose us. Not because of works of righteousness that we have done but according to his mercy.

But he does not somehow elect apart from his knowledge of who will be saved and who wont. He does not forget or work apart from who he is or what he knows. God is omniscient and he remains omniscient (knowing who will be saved and who wont) when he elects.That is why they believe it is not based on man, it is based on God, but in accordance with his foreknowledge 

Geisler wrote an excellent article on the subject in his systematic theology.

http://www.logos.com/productts/details/4660

Posts 1469
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 7:54 AM

Bryan Brodess:

John Bowling:

P.S. I might add, Bryan, that it seems the doctrines of TULIP as you expound them (if I understand you correctly) could easily be shown logically inconsistent. But I suppose that this isn't the place to debate that.

 

As for what you posted before this, I would love to speak about this further in Blair's thread,, this is not the place to discuss this. Just let me know

 

as for this comment

 

I think it might be that these are the two most "reformed" theologies, your either one or the other.

 

Arminianism, since they do not believe in eternal security. many probably wonder if they are even truly saved,, so do not even want to associate with this group.. Calvanism, on the other hand,, I doubt many question whether they are saved,, just how they arived at their faith., So those who differ on some points would rather associate themselves with people they consider brothers, as apposed to people they wonder if they are even brothers..

 

if this even makes sense..

 

and this is purely a simple guess as to why people consider themselves moderate calvin as apposed to moderate arminian..

 

I would have to agree this is not the place for this subject. I would love to discuss this further on my debate forum

http://debate.divinesoteriology.com

I actually believe I offered to further this type of discussion in my forum with John at another point in time but the conversation, but John never obliged.

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 7:58 AM

Blair Laird:

Lol, yeah moderate calvinists believe that God does not choose us because we chose him, but that he chooses us based on his decision not ours. Soley out of his grace and mercy he chose us. Not because of works of righteousness that we have done but according to his mercy.

But he does not somehow elect apart from his knowledge of who will be saved and who wont. He does not forget or work apart from who he is or what he knows. God is omniscient and he remains omniscient (knowing who will be saved and who wont) when he elects.That is why they believe it is not based on man, it is based on God, but in accordance with his foreknowledge 

Geisler wrote an excellent article on the subject in his systematic theology.

http://www.logos.com/productts/details/4660

Maybe we should go to your website to discuss this??

 

I still do not understand how this type of thinking can be..

Since our "faith" in Christ is not a work.. but is actually the work of God (it is him we are trusting not ourselves) God is not going against his essence by chosing to elect those who knew beforehand would recieve his free gift by their trust in his work and his promises. It is still gods work. (see also john 6.. where Jesus makes it clear when asked what work one must do. that it is the work of GOD that we have faith (believe) in Christ...

 

From what you just stated, I am as confused as I am with full calvanists.. Why does God chose to save person A and chose to reject person B.. If faith in Christ has nothing to do with either chosing to save or reject.. then why else did God chose to say yes to A and no to B.

 

on the other hand, if faith is the reason God chose A and lack of faith is the reason God chose not to save B(which is what I believe), then it is completely logical to understand what Gods foreknowledge was in.. Who had ( or will have ) faith, and who will not.

 

does this make any sense??..lol

 

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 7:58 AM

by the way your link did not work Stick out tongue  lol

Posts 1469
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:07 AM

Try this

http://www.logos.com/products/details/4660 if not here is another one it is the first one on the list

http://www.logos.com/search?q=Theology+bundle+19+volumes

 

Posts 1469
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:11 AM

I started a new discussion so we can discuss this further. If you have joined the forum before just follow this link to the discussion

http://debate.divinesoteriology.com/User/Discussions.aspx?id=216133

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:16 AM

Blair Laird:

Try this

http://www.logos.com/products/details/4660 if not here is another one it is the first one on the list

http://www.logos.com/search?q=Theology+bundle+19+volumes

 

Well I have ericksons, have ordered a hard copy of chaffer's ( can not afford logos price.. ) and can not afford to purchase geislers..  is there anyplace online where I might find his thoughts..

 

Posts 3688
Floyd Johnson | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:18 AM

Dan Sheppard:

Floyd Johnson:


2. Pope, William Burt (1880).  A Compendium Of Christian Theology.

Pope’s three volume work is both scholarly and easy to read.  It is grounded throughout in scripture.  This work is available on-line as PDF files at

     Volume 1: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2401-2500/HDM2404.PDF
     Volume 2: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2401-2500/HDM2405.PDF
     Volume 3: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/2401-2500/HDM2406.PDF

You forgot the "smiley". Cool

Strange - Arminian theology, coming from a Pope!

 

Blessings,
Floyd

Pastor-Patrick.blogspot.com

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:19 AM

Blair Laird:

I started a new discussion so we can discuss this further. If you have joined the forum before just follow this link to the discussion

http://debate.divinesoteriology.com/User/Discussions.aspx?id=216133

 

Just posted there. One day I will figure out why people believe the way they do in this area....lol

 

Posts 1469
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:23 AM

Logos does have the payment plan.. Thats how I purchased the set. (just in case you didnt know) Smile

As far as Geislers stuff

http://www.normangeisler.net/articles.htm here are a few articles

he has mp3's and dvd's here

http://www.shop2.internationallegacy.org/

but that's the only place I have found his stuff other then what I get from his college

http://veritasseminary.com/edu/

 

 

Posts 3688
Floyd Johnson | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:24 AM

Calminian anyone?

Blessings,
Floyd

Pastor-Patrick.blogspot.com

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:25 AM

Floyd Johnson:

Calminian anyone?

LMAO  Stick out tongue

 

Posts 1469
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:40 AM

I posted a response to your question hope it helps

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 8:55 AM

it depends.. I saw nothing in what you posted that disagrees with what I believe. that foreknowledge is based on faith.. In fact I would use what geisler wrote to back up what I believe easily..lol

 

so maybe I am still confused??..lol

Posts 1469
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 9:05 AM

It is a matter of terminology. God does base anything on man. Salvation is not based on us but based on his mercy. It is solely God that is the cause of our election not us, but in accordance with his foreknowledge he knows who will be saved and who wont. He does not elect apart from this knowledge.

I was confused about it also at one point. The matter of terminology.. keeps one out the the middle knowledge theology,open theism, or a process theology.

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 16 2010 9:15 AM

Blair Laird:

It is a matter of terminology. God does base anything on man. Salvation is not based on us but based on his mercy. It is solely God that is the cause of our election not us, but in accordance with his foreknowledge he knows who will be saved and who wont. He does not elect apart from this knowledge.

I was confused about it also at one point. The matter of terminology.. keeps one out the the middle knowledge theology,open theism, or a process theology.

I guess I look at it this way.

 

If salvation is based on our faith in Christ. then our election must be based on Gods foreknowledge of who would have faith and who would not.

 

otherwise it can not be based on faith.. our decision to chose to accept Gods gift or reject it is removed from the equation..and it again reverts to God forcing one to believe, and forcing one to reject.. which I can not scripturally support. nor can I reason this type of thinking.

even jesus in his intercessory prayer thanks god for keeping his promise and giving him the ones who believed on his word.. and not them only but all who will believe in christ. and that we would be united together as one.. (jn 17)

in other words, I believe God looked throughout history.. He knew man would fail and reject him in the garden.. Yet they loved us so much ( even before we were created) they came up with a plan. That christ would come to earth. Take our punishment in our place.. so that whoever believeth in him will not perish but live forever ( john 3: 16) And christ and the father had an agreement, that whoever choses of their free will to recieve Christ and believe in him will be chosen to be saved based on what Christ would do..

this is predestination based on foreknowledge as I believe it.. Foreknowledge of who would freely chose to accept in faith.. and who would freely chose to reject based on lack of faith..

 

 

 

 

Page 2 of 3 (49 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS