You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian!

David,

Read my first post. My objection was to the binary approach to this topic, it is not moot. Unfortunately, it has been argued that way for centuries. Christopher Cone presented a series on here on SI for a third way. Calvinists just dismiss it and say, “Sorry only two options.” Forget the Bible, we have calvinism.

Instead of DBTS professors saying why a “third way was wrong” they write an article and say…”Sorry, only two options”. Typical calvinism.

David, you are very confusing. You challenge me by stating that I don’t think anyone’s view is right besides my own, but then state that DBTS professors of course think theirs is right. But you act like I can’t have my view that theirs is wrong, because I am then somewhat conceded. Can it not be, that we both believe we are right, without the innuendo that one of us is conceded for thinking so? I did not call them conceded. I just believe they try to promote their views by limiting the debate, and dismissing others.

That was my whole reason for responding to Tyler to begin with.

For His glory,

Ken

[Larry]

That depends on what you mean by unconditional election. I believe in it, but I disagree with its usual formulation in Calvinist theologies.

Generally, there’s not of debate, right? Unconditional election means that God, in eternity past, chose individuals to salvation without regard to anything in the individual.

What’s that got to do with what I said about Arminianism and Calvinism? I was only saying that the nuances in the discussion may preclude a simple dichotomy.

What’s that got to do with what I said about Arminianism and Calvinism? I was only saying that the nuances in the discussion may preclude a simple dichotomy.

Here’s how we got here:

• You said there was a middle way.
• I asked what it was.
• You said it depends on what you mean by unconditional election.
• I gave the standard definition of unconditional election.
• You ask what that has to do with CvA.

And here we are.

So we are back to the initial question of what the via media is between conditional and unconditional election. People, including you seemingly, say it’s not binary, but so far, no one has given a third option that I have seen. That was my question to you. What is the via media that you suggest exists?

“It was a joint effort, not just Joe choosing God alone. Calvinists must believe that God regenerated a person, then they had faith to believe. Arminians believe God via the Spirit freed man’s will to make a choice unto salvation, not election. Election and salvation are not one in the same. Calvinists constantly use this false argument to defend their position, but it is not the position of Arminians.”

Assuming that was a response to me, here’s a couple of things. (1) There is no evidence here that I can see that Dr. Combs misrepresented Arminianism. Dr. Combs said nothing about Joe choosing God alone, did he? That is your (mis?) representation of what he said, isn’t it? Dr. Combs affirmed that Joe’s choosing was based on prevenient grace from God. (2) If what you say here is your view (It’s a joint effort, not man alone) is your view, then you have just claimed the side of Arminianism, haven’t you?

That takes us back to the original questions I asked you which were: (1) Who does an Arminian believe is the ultimate decider? and (2) How do you know no one ever comes to the truth on the matter?

Larry asks, “What is the via media that you suggest exists?”

I have said, “I understand Dr Combs (and Roger Olson) when they make it either/or, but the subtleties of the question, especially when one introduces e.g. K. Keathley’s arguments in Salvation & Sovereignty seem to demand a via media.”

Larry,

Here is an excerpt…

“The other, and only other[2] possible, answer is that God chose Joe because Joe chose God (conditional election). God looked down the corridors of time and saw that Joe would one day believe the gospel, so he elected Joe. But actually God did not make any independent choice. If Joe chooses God, God must choose Joe, but if Joe rejects God, God cannot choose Joe. God simply ratifies whatever choice Joe makes. Joe has the same grace (prevenient) necessary to believe the gospel as his brother Jack. According to this view, everyone who hears the gospel has the prevenient grace necessary to believe the gospel. But if that is so, how do we explain why Joe accepted the gospel and Jack rejected it? The only answer is that there is something in Joe, something superior in Joe (intelligence, merit, goodness—something) that caused him to believe—something that Joe had but Jack lacked. This difference between Joe and Jack is not due to God. God does exactly the same thing for both Joe and Jack. They had the same opportunity, the same grace (prevenient). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that in some way Joe must be better than Jack. Joe did not do it all, or most of it, but he deserves some credit. This is Arminianism.”

Arminians would not agree with this line of reasoning (in bold) as being their own. Again, Read Olson’s book - Myth 6. They do misrepresent Arminian Theology.

Why did Adam reject God’s command to avoid eating from the fruit of the tree?

To answer your question, No, I am not an Arminian. I do not believe the Bible provides a complete answer regarding the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Man. I know the present two primary systems of thought are incomplete, ingrained in religion, and both faulty because of my previous point.

If you want to chat more, please send me a private message via SI. This is my last post on this thread.

Thanks,

Ken

Ken, I call jade’s trick.

You write innuendos, insult me with your latest post, who would want to participate.

You started this way and just continued. Call it what you will, but I don’t waste my breath (or keystrokes) on foolish people.

Ken

That is a word easily thrown around, isn’t it? Out here in my neck of the woods, first the term is given in regards to the Bible, second in regards to the Tri-unity of God, and third, anytime I say I am an inconsistent Calvinist or Arminian, depending on what Bible passage I am studying.

I try not to be incoherent because who is attracted to an incoherent theology? But I know I am inconsistent, and that is continually sourced in my limitations and weakness. It is both frustrating and humbling.

Ken is certainly right to point out that Combs’ characterization of Arminianism (highlighted in his post above) is wrong. You can’t read Arminius and say what Combs says. I am not Arminian but I have read Arminians and they do not believe what Combs puts into their heads.

Ken, I have to say I’m at a genuine loss. If you care to point out any specific insult or innuendo of mine I’ll be happy to discuss, even apologize. I must say at the outset, though, I don’t think playing the “jade’s trick” card is beyond the pale in this forum. I will happily be moderated on this, however.

It seemed to me that, prior to my first post, you were complaining that the Calvinists thought their view the only valid one (which of course is what we all believe about our theological view). I hope I correct that here by conceding that I misread you. My bad.

On the flip side, you weren’t really clear to some of us as to how Combs misrepresented actual Arminians. For several posts in this thread at least, you simply made the assertion without telling us what they actually believed over against what Combs said they believed. For future reference, you could probably save alot of time by clarifying such things up front.
Be well.

[TylerR]

I need to read Arminius. I’ve been meaning to, but I haven’t yet!

He’s not easy reading. Very logical and incisive (even if one disagrees). Really like his responses to Gomarus and Perkins. If you haven’t read Olson’s Arminian Theology you really should. Too Thomas Oden’s Systematic Theology is really good, though I still go for Erickson or Culver.

[Paul Henebury]

I am not Arminian but I have read Arminians and they do not believe what Combs puts into their heads.

You simply cannot deny that Arminians believe that election is based on foreseen faith.