Looking for a Traditional Evangelical Arminian Systematic Theology ...

Stephen Paynter · December 2009

Hi everyone,

I wonder if anyone could recommend the best Arminian Systematic Theology around (especially if it is available in the Libronix format).

Thanks in anticipation.

Todd Phillips · December 2009

John Miley's seems to be recommended, but it's still on pre-pub: http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/4300

Oden's Systematic Theology also has a Arminian viewpoint: http://www.logos.com/products/details/3682
(Though he does present views on each topic from a historical perspective--mainly church fathers--before he gives his own conclusions).

Stephen Paynter · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49609#Comment_49609

Thanks, Miley's Systematic Theology looks exactly what I was looking for.

Floyd Johnson · December 2009

Stephen Edward Paynter said:
I wonder if anyone could recommend the best Arminian Systematic Theology around (especially if it is available in the Libronix format).

A number of years ago I put together a list of Wesleyan-Arminian resources I would like to see in Libronix. Here is that list:

==================================================

Bible Commentaries

1. Wesleyan Bible Study Commentaries (2001 to Present) **

Currently being developed by the Wesleyan Publishing House
(a division of The Wesleyan Church), the following volumes have been
published:

Genesis (out of stock indefinitely) Psalms Proverbs John Acts Romans Ephesians I and II Thessalonians 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon James Revelation (January 2005)

2. Wesleyan Bible Commentary (1966) **

This six volume set, published by the Willam B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, covers the entire Bible. I have found it to be a
helpful resource to have at my side.

Theological Works

1. Miley, John (1892). Systematic Theology **

I am less familiar with Miley’s work, but Grudem says,
“This is probably the most scholarly and extensive Arminian systematic
theology ever written. Miley was a professor at Drew Theological
Seminary, Madison, New Jersey.” It is available on line at the Internet Archive:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Miley%20systematic%20theology%20AND%20collection%3Aamericana

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

Wayne Grudem (author of Systematic Theology) writes that, “This work
… is one of the greatest systematic theologies written from a
Wesleyan or Arminian perspective.”

3. Watson, Richard (1851). Theological Institutes.

Watson’s work, published in two volumes, is a well-written
work which, though very biblical, has a philosophical bent. It
available on-line at

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/watson/index.htm

The on-line format is such that it cannot be searched and its
formatting leaves much to be desired for reading. This work is also
available as a PDF file on an AGES CD.

4. Wiley, H. Orton (1940). Christian Theology.

Orton’s is an important work because it was the standard
Wesleyan theology text for Bible College and Seminary students for much
of the latter half of the 20th century. It, however, does not have the
depth of either Watson or Pope (or, Grudem states, Miley). It is much
more a descriptive theology than a systematic theology. It is
available on line at

http://wesley.nnu.edu/holiness_tradition/wiley/index.htm

Study Bibles

1. Reflecting God Study Bible (1998)

This is the Wesleyan edition of the familiar NIV Study
Bible. Besides including a good set of study notes, this edition also
includes a set for essays aimed at helping the believer live a holy
life. Though still available through Christian book distributors, it
does not seem to be available from the Zondervan, the publisher.

2. The Wesley Bible (1990)

Study notes from a Wesleyan perspective are the keynote of
this NKJV bible. This is still my standard Study Bible.

3. The Wesley Study Bible (2009)

A recent Wesleyan study Bible edited by Joel B. Green (from Fuller Seminary) and William H. Willimon (a United Methodist Bishop)

==================================================

Though this original list was created in 2004, I did add this last item to the list of original resources as I typed this note. You will note that I marked several of the items in RED ** to indicate that they are at some stage in the Pre-pub process. I would like to see the remaining items in Libronix, I can only hope.

I hope this list helps.

Yours because His,

Floyd

PS I am not seeing the red or the Arial Black font so I added asterisks to the three items that are in pre-pub.

Floyd Johnson · December 2009

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49705#Comment_49705

Floyd Johnson said:
Miley, John (1892). Systematic Theology **

I just added a link to Miley's Systematic Theology at the "Internet Archive" - this makes all four of the commentaries in my list accessible - though not via LOGOS as of yet. I eagerly await the time when they may all be available.

Blessings,

Floyd

david the psalter · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49792#Comment_49792

Try this great book

Grace, Faith & Holiness

A Wesleyan Systematic Theology

By: H. Ray Dunning

http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/nph/itempage.jsp?itemId=083-411-2191

Nathan Lentfer · January 2010

The Compendium of Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by William Burt Pope (3 Vols.) is in community pricing right now. I don't know when it will be released, but it seems to fit your desire for a "Traditional Evangelical Arminian Systematic Theology." See the link below for more information.

http://www.logos.com/communitypricing/details/5664

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49609#Comment_49609

Todd Phillips said:

John Miley's seems to be recommended, but it's still on pre-pub: http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/4300

Oden's Systematic Theology also has a Arminian viewpoint: http://www.logos.com/products/details/3682
(Though he does present views on each topic from a historical perspective--mainly church fathers--before he gives his own conclusions).

I thought Oden was a moderate calvinist.

Todd Phillips · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77517#Comment_77517

Blair Laird said:

I thought Oden was a moderate calvinist.

I'll let him speak for himself, and you can decide:

Due to the history of sin, humanity is in far worse shape than a stone or lump of clay, for sinners actively resist their salvation. The potter can mold the clay, but what if the “clay” has a determined will not to be molded? God does not force godliness or regenerating grace upon human beings, for if forced it could be neither truly godly nor truly just. God draws persons toward salvation by calling, illuminating, convicting, and enabling faith wherever there is an opening amid human resistances (John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, step 4, sec. 121, p. 53). It is no simple work for the Spirit to create a pure heart and steadfast spirit, considering our recalcitrance (Ps. 51:10).
Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit : Systematic Theology, Vol. III. (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 165.

Friedrich · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77548#Comment_77548

a lot of this depends on how you define these terms. To some, "Arminian" almost means Pelagian. To others a particular "Arminian" viewpoint almost seems Calvinist.

Jack Cottrell is essentially "arminian" and his "faith once for all", available in logos, will give you that perspective.

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77548#Comment_77548

Todd Phillips said:

Blair Laird said:

I thought Oden was a moderate calvinist.

I'll let him speak for himself, and you can decide:

Due to the history of sin, humanity is in far worse shape than a stone or lump of clay, for sinners actively resist their salvation. The potter can mold the clay, but what if the “clay” has a determined will not to be molded? God does not force godliness or regenerating grace upon human beings, for if forced it could be neither truly godly nor truly just. God draws persons toward salvation by calling, illuminating, convicting, and enabling faith wherever there is an opening amid human resistances (John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, step 4, sec. 121, p. 53). It is no simple work for the Spirit to create a pure heart and steadfast spirit, considering our recalcitrance (Ps. 51:10).
Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit : Systematic Theology, Vol. III. (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 165.

Moderate Calvinists also do not believe that God forces regeneration on people apart from faith. Moderate Calvinist holds that faith precedes regeneration and therefore God does not "drag people kicking and screaming into heaven". As Norman Geisler say's "forced love is not love at all, it is rape" So a person is saved by grace through faith.

However doing more research on Oden, it seems you may be right. He has done some work on Wesley etc... I just always thought of him more as a moderate calvinist, then an arminian.

Thanks for that quote.. God Bless..

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77553#Comment_77553

Dan DeVilder said:

a lot of this depends on how you define these terms. To some, "Arminian" almost means Pelagian. To others a particular "Arminian" viewpoint almost seems Calvinist.

Jack Cottrell is essentially "arminian" and his "faith once for all", available in logos, will give you that perspective.

Your absolutley right. Reformed Arminians pretty much stick with the work of Jacob arminius who never made a stance on eternal security. Modern day Arminians are more familiar with the work of Wesley and others.

I have seen a big difference between reformed arminian and arminian teachings

Todd Phillips · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77558#Comment_77558

Blair Laird said:
Moderate Calvinists also do not believe that God forces regeneration on people apart from faith.

The reason I didn't say anything else is because "Moderate Calvinist" doesn't have a clear definition that I can point to or even understand. Moderate in what? and how much can Calvinism be moderated before the term loses it's meaning?

Dan Sheppard · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49705#Comment_49705

Floyd Johnson said:

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

Strange - Arminian theology, coming from a Pope!

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77562#Comment_77562

Todd Phillips said:

Blair Laird said:
Moderate Calvinists also do not believe that God forces regeneration on people apart from faith.

The reason I didn't say anything else is because "Moderate Calvinist" doesn't have a clear definition that I can point to or even understand. Moderate in what? and how much can Calvinism be moderated before the term loses it's meaning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate_Calvinism

This website will give you more information. Ive looked it over and it sums up moderate calvinism pretty well. Also you have a very good point. "moderate what" They seem to strike a balance being calvinistic in their teaching on sovereignty etc. However differing from calvinism on atonement (although they hold to atonement the way calvin taught it) and free will ( although their understanding of free will is not the ability to choose God apart from his grace. That is something which they deny. They are not pelegian, but free will being our ability to believe once God has drawn us apart from regeneration.)

I'll have to stop posting, as I believe I am hijacking the thread.

If you would like to discuss more I would be happy to talk with you in another forum, by email, or chat.

I think you are probably right on Oden though, I am probably wrong. I concluded that after seeing he wrote a book on Wesely

God Bless..

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77572#Comment_77572

Moderate calvanists hold to these tenents:

·
Total
Depravity: maintains that man's
depravity is “total.” Since the fall of Adam all men are born in sin with
Adam's sin nature. There is no part of man's nature that was not affected by
sin. Man is totally depraved, and unable to change his inherit sin nature. But
total depravity does not mean total inability. Man's will is free to choose the
gift of salvation. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human
ability. Even though man does have a free will, he has no capacity for saving
himself. God graciously draws people to Himself, but free will is the means by
which salvation is received.

·
Unconditional
Election: agree that salvation is an unconditional gift. The question is
not whether there are any conditions for God giving salvation; but whether
there are any conditions for man receiving salvation. Election is unconditional
from the vantage point of the Giver, but there is one condition for the
receiver. Faith is the condition for receiving salvation. Moderate Calvinism
does not have to redefine the word “foreknowledge” in 1 Peter 1:2. Election is “according
to” or “in harmony with” God's foreknowledge. God's election is neither based
on His foreknowledge of man's free choice nor is His election exercised
independent of it. There is no chronological or logical priority of God's
election and God's foreknowledge.

·
Limited
Atonement: agrees with John Calvin who wrote, “Christ
suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered
unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for part of the
world only, but for the whole human race.” God sent the Son into the world that
the world through Him might be saved (Jn. 3:17). That's why Jesus is referred
to as the Savior of the world (Jn. 4:42; 1 Jn. 4:14). In dying for the whole
world, Christ tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9). Jesus is truly the Savior
of all men (1 Tim. 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in that the offer of
salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in that only believers
are truly saved.

·
Irresistible
Grace: maintains that saving faith
is the God-ordained means for regeneration, and not the result of regeneration.
Regeneration or the new birth takes place at the moment a person trusts in
Christ and not before they trust in Christ. The scriptural order is first faith
and then life.

·
Perseverance
of the saints: teaches preservation of the saints as opposed to
perseverance of the saints. The Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security teaches
that the believer will be preserved by the grace of God. No saint will ever be
lost (even if they die in a sinful state). The believer is eternally secure.
Moderate Calvinists believe in assurance of salvation while on earth .

It would appear the difference between Moderate Calvinists and Arminians is one believes one can lose salvation. One does not.. Does anyone see any other differences?

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77712#Comment_77712

Bryan Brodess said:

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Moderate calvanists hold to these tenents:

·
Total
Depravity: maintains that man's
depravity is “total.” Since the fall of Adam all men are born in sin with
Adam's sin nature. There is no part of man's nature that was not affected by
sin. Man is totally depraved, and unable to change his inherit sin nature. But
total depravity does not mean total inability. Man's will is free to choose the
gift of salvation. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human
ability. Even though man does have a free will, he has no capacity for saving
himself. God graciously draws people to Himself, but free will is the means by
which salvation is received.

·
Unconditional
Election: agree that salvation is an unconditional gift. The question is
not whether there are any conditions for God giving salvation; but whether
there are any conditions for man receiving salvation. Election is unconditional
from the vantage point of the Giver, but there is one condition for the
receiver. Faith is the condition for receiving salvation. Moderate Calvinism
does not have to redefine the word “foreknowledge” in 1 Peter 1:2. Election is “according
to” or “in harmony with” God's foreknowledge. God's election is neither based
on His foreknowledge of man's free choice nor is His election exercised
independent of it. There is no chronological or logical priority of God's
election and God's foreknowledge.

·
Limited
Atonement: agrees with John Calvin who wrote, “Christ
suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered
unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for part of the
world only, but for the whole human race.” God sent the Son into the world that
the world through Him might be saved (Jn. 3:17). That's why Jesus is referred
to as the Savior of the world (Jn. 4:42; 1 Jn. 4:14). In dying for the whole
world, Christ tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9). Jesus is truly the Savior
of all men (1 Tim. 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in that the offer of
salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in that only believers
are truly saved.

·
Irresistible
Grace: maintains that saving faith
is the God-ordained means for regeneration, and not the result of regeneration.
Regeneration or the new birth takes place at the moment a person trusts in
Christ and not before they trust in Christ. The scriptural order is first faith
and then life.

·
Perseverance
of the saints: teaches preservation of the saints as opposed to
perseverance of the saints. The Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security teaches
that the believer will be preserved by the grace of God. No saint will ever be
lost (even if they die in a sinful state). The believer is eternally secure.
Moderate Calvinists believe in assurance of salvation while on earth .

It would appear the difference between Moderate Calvinists and Arminians is one believes one can lose salvation. One does not..   Does anyone see any other differences?

Yes the other difference is on unconditional election. Arminians believe that election is based on foreknowledge. Moderate Calvinists do not believe it is based on Gods foreknowledge, also election is not done apart from the foreknowledge either. It is done in accordance with his foreknowledge.

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77713#Comment_77713

Blair Laird said:

Yes the other difference is on unconditional election. Arminians believe that election is based on foreknowledge. Moderate Calvinists do not believe it is based on Gods foreknowledge, also election is not done apart from the foreknowledge either. It is done in accordance with his foreknowledge.

Wow I did not know this. I guess this makes me neither calvanist, moderate calvanist or arminain..

lol....

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77717#Comment_77717

LOL

New Category....

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77718#Comment_77718

Blair Laird said:

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..

[:S]

I must be in a temporal purgatory..lol

John Bowling · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77712#Comment_77712

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.

John Bowling · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77722#Comment_77722

Bryan Brodess said:

Blair Laird said:

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..

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."

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77732#Comment_77732

John Bowling said:

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.

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77730#Comment_77730

John Bowling said:

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..

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77722#Comment_77722

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

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77738#Comment_77738

Bryan Brodess said:

John Bowling said:

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.

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77756#Comment_77756

Blair Laird said:

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

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77759#Comment_77759

by the way your link did not work [:P] lol

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77760#Comment_77760

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

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77759#Comment_77759

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

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77771#Comment_77771

Blair Laird said:

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..

Floyd Johnson · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77565#Comment_77565

Dan Sheppard said:

Floyd Johnson said:

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". [H]

Strange - Arminian theology, coming from a Pope!

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77773#Comment_77773

Blair Laird said:

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

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77779#Comment_77779

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

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/

Floyd Johnson · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77786#Comment_77786

Calminian anyone?

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77793#Comment_77793

Floyd Johnson said:

Calminian anyone?

LMAO [:P]

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77795#Comment_77795

I posted a response to your question hope it helps

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77805#Comment_77805

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

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77818#Comment_77818

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.

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77825#Comment_77825

Blair Laird said:

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..

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77833#Comment_77833

Bryan Brodess said:
in other words, I believe God looked throughout history

Check this video out it is a small excerpt from one of Geislers sermons that deals with what you just said

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUxXHIYPCDY

Bryan Brodess · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77842#Comment_77842

Blair Laird said:

Bryan Brodess said:
in other words, I believe God looked throughout history

Check this video out it is a small excerpt from one of Geislers sermons that deals with what you just said

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUxXHIYPCDY

All this does is take make it even more confusing.

According to this point of view..( there is no future in Gods thinking.. so he can not look out at history) God could not have foreknowledge.. for he would have present knowledge fpr everything past present and future is present to him..

Thus the whole debate is useless. God cannot elect based on foreknowledge for he has no foreknowledge..

so again I am stuck with the question.,

Did God chose to elect me because he knew beforehand I would place my faith in him?

or did God chose to elect me for some other reason?? and if this the case.. what is that reason? (Note that I tried to get rpavich to answer this at your website, and he never did answer.)

this is the thrust of the whole question I am asking

why did God chose to elect me?? I believe it is because he knew I would chose to recieve his word and place my faith in him.

if it is not this reason.. then why??

Rich DeRuiter · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77848#Comment_77848

Blair and Bryan, can this discussion be taken off-line? It looks a lot like the soteriology debate of a few weeks ago, and seems to be producing about as much fruit.

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77849#Comment_77849

Richard DeRuiter said:

Blair and Bryan, can this discussion be taken off-line? It looks a lot like the soteriology debate of a few weeks ago, and seems to be producing about as much fruit.

Actually we did move it but it ended back up here. Sorry for you having to read it . God Bless ...

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77848#Comment_77848

Bryan Brodess said:

Blair Laird said:

Bryan Brodess said:
in other words, I believe God looked throughout history

Check this video out it is a small excerpt from one of Geislers sermons that deals with what you just said

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUxXHIYPCDY

All this does is take make it even more confusing.

According to this point of view..( there is no future in Gods thinking.. so he can not look out at history) God could not have foreknowledge.. for he would have present knowledge fpr everything past present and future is present to him..

Thus the whole debate is useless. God cannot elect based on foreknowledge for he has no foreknowledge..

so again I am stuck with the question.,

Did God chose to elect me because he knew beforehand I would place my faith in him?

or did God chose to elect me for some other reason?? and if this the case.. what is that reason? (Note that I tried to get rpavich to answer this at your website, and he never did answer.)

this is the thrust of the whole question I am asking

why did God chose to elect me?? I believe it is because he knew I would chose to recieve his word and place my faith in him.

if it is not this reason.. then why??

I will follow up with your question in my forum

Rich DeRuiter · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77850#Comment_77850

Blair Laird said:
Actually we did move it but it ended back up here. Sorry for you having to read it . God Bless ...

I'm not sorry to read it. But as before, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. So it's difficult to follow without setting you all straight. [;)]

Secondarily, it's outside the initial question of this thread and the purpose for these forums.

Blair Laird · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77936#Comment_77936

Some may see it as profitable. Such as myself... I believe Iron sharpens iron and we should continually dwell upon the things of the Lord.

Also I know it is outside of the initial question as you see on the first page I originally opted out of more discussion on this thread concerning the topic,,,, Just kinda got drawn back in, as I love discussions like these... Theology should be in our thoughts and on our lips constantly. We should always be wrestling with the word. I dont say that as if you dont discuss it all the time as well, but I say it to let you know where I am coming from... God Bless

Steve Adams · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77712#Comment_77712

that's not a "moderate calvinist". That is a pure 5 pointer which, although not the exact response of Dordt afte 18 months of debate, TULIP was I believe constructed by Warfield to remember them more easily. These are full calvinists. Moderates usually remove Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement (same thing).

However, within Calvinists there are:

Anglicans/Episcopalians

Dutch Reformed and their descendants URCNA, CRC, RCA, and a few others

Presbyterian: OPC, PC-USA, PCA, etc.

Reformed Baptists

Sovereign Grace or Reformed Charismatics

Each believe all 5 of the points and ascribe to the Council of Dordt decision against the remonstrance. the differ on other more minor points.

Any Arminiast should read Death of Death in the Death of Christ and they'll probably change their theology, its by John Owen and has yet to be fully refuted.

nancy

Matthew C Jones · January 2010

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77947#Comment_77947

Blair Laird said:
Some may see it as profitable. Such as myself...

[au] Auto oil changes are profitable but dont try to do that in a hotel elevator. [:P]

If any new reader comes here looking for Arminian related viewpoints start at the beginning of the thread. There are several great on-topic responses. (The Calvinistic-Arminian debate is veering across several threads, as it usually does.)

~signed, Matthew C Jones, "calminian" [;)]

Drew Wilson · March 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/77553#Comment_77553

Some skeptics and even Christians have wrongly misunderstood John Wesley’s teachings on Original Sin. This grievous mistake of thinking Wesley was affirming Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism is the result of misunderstanding how Wesley affirms the role of man’s free will and how our will works together with the Holy Spirit in salvation. To this Oden says, “When Wesley is mistakenly portrayed today as a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian, the portrayer owes it to fairness to read The Doctrine of Original Sin. When Wesley is portrayed as a cheery humanistic type of Arminian who supposedly stressed the natural abilities of man, the critic reveals ignorance of the defining Doctrinal Minutes of August 1745 instructing all preachers in Wesley’s connection.”1 I 1 Excerpt From: John Wesley's Teachings, Volume 2. Thomas C. Oden, Copyright 2012. (pp. 209)

MJ. Smith · March 2023

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1251793#Comment_1251793

Welcome to the forums where we provide assistance in the use of Faithlife products. Be sure to read the guidelines Forum Guidelines - Logos Forums and remember the only dumb question is the one you don't ask.

Looking for a Traditional Evangelical Arminian Systematic Theology ...

Comments

Categories