Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Summary Evaluation of Arminian Theology" -- Dr. Paul Enns
Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press) 1996. | Paul Enns

Posted on 05/13/2002 10:08:33 PM PDT by drstevej

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-199 next last
To: drstevej
It's your "choice" or "fate" [Pick One].

How about "foice." Or maybe, "chate." <GRIN>

41 posted on 05/13/2002 11:38:21 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
I see an incompatibility between predestination and free will. And I see foreknowledge as pre-planning. So, YES.
42 posted on 05/13/2002 11:38:42 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck;
The same question, I would think, could be made concerning any other gift from God; i.e. why, if this promise is true, are some beneficiaries apparently ignorant of their gifts. The Holy Spirit teaches. Teaching is a process; it takes time. It isn't (usually) "poof" and voila, instant complete illumination.

Actually, somethings are "poof" from God. Conversion is. For ten years I was an atheist, and then "poof" in one instant I was no longer.

43 posted on 05/13/2002 11:39:19 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
No argument is really "dispensed with" until it has been completely related to axioms. The point is (and Aquinas would surely agree) that axioms beyond our immediate experience, even counterintuitive, are required.
44 posted on 05/13/2002 11:40:47 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
...the biblical term "foreknow" means more than simple advanced knowledge. The debate over God's sovereignty is impacted by this issue.
These 'free will and foreknowledge' debates tend to be centered around elementary logical fallacies.

Is the mind of God an entirely logic-based entity?

45 posted on 05/13/2002 11:40:58 PM PDT by henbane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Gonna dis Aquinas, huh? Okay okay... =)

Here is something else to ponder:

The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God, which is above the nature of every creature.

The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature. Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark.

Sooooo...properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God. The reason of that direction pre-exists in God; as in Him is the type of the order of all things towards an end, which we proved above to be providence.

Now the type in the mind of the doer of something to be done, is a kind of pre-existence in him of the thing to be done. And the type of the afore direction of a rational creature towards the end of life eternal is called predestination. For to destine, is to direct or send. Thus it is clear that predestination, as regards its objects, is a part of providence.

I think Aquinas was on the money. Which part do you disagree with?

46 posted on 05/13/2002 11:43:20 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
In this wise, I agree with the "poof" theory (it's getting late, we're getting punchy). One moment an atheist or agnostic, the next a believer. What is not "poof" is all the additional understanding that comes with the territory.
47 posted on 05/13/2002 11:43:22 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
That would be more appropo, IMNSHO.
48 posted on 05/13/2002 11:45:30 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
What is not "poof" is all the additional understanding that comes with the territory.

I do agree with that. However understanding can be aquired by prayer. I have found that one only has to ask God for enlightenment and knowledge of his intrinsic nature and he will answer the prayer. It may only be a tiny fraction of His nature, but one can indeed increase in knowledge.

And you're right. I am getting very punchy. I'm going to turn in. Good night. =)

49 posted on 05/13/2002 11:49:13 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
No dissing of Aquinas from me. He takes the argument to a different, but equally valid plane, that of purpose. It is like (viz my hi-tech side) the way electrical engineers can analyze a problem of circuit behavior either in the time domain or the frequency domain.
50 posted on 05/13/2002 11:50:44 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: Goldhammer
I'm not arguing against the logicians. I'm arguing that they need a better P.R. department.
53 posted on 05/13/2002 11:54:34 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
You are right. Arminian has to do with Jacob Arminius [1588-1609]. His views and those of his followers, the Remonstrants, were a reaction to Calvinism. John Wesley later espoused views quite similar to Arminius.

You are partially correct, but the Canons of Dort from which TULIP is derived was formulated by the Dutch Calvinists in response to the Arminian statement of faith. If you doubt this, all you need to do is take a look at the back of a Christian Reformed Church 'Psalter Hymnal' and read it for yourself. Even the Dutch/Christian Reformed Church would not debate this point.

While I think the Arminian viewpoint is much more correct than that of the Dutch Calvinists, one must give some credit where credit is due. The Christian Reformed Church is the organization that initiated and gave birth to the NIV of the Bible, althought it eventually enlisted and joined with several other churches and organizations in a coordinated effort to create a Bible that truly strived to be an accurate thought-for-thought translation of the Bible, a claim that is apparently accepted based on the extremely wide acceptance of this version.

54 posted on 05/13/2002 11:54:59 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
The point is (and Aquinas would surely agree) that axioms beyond our immediate experience, even counterintuitive, are required.

Why? If some argument reduces to an elementary logical error, then it is refuted

That is all well and fine and good, as far as it goes.

But people aren't created to be Dr. Spock's. There is something even in the midst of the erroneous debates common to Arminianism vs. Calvinism which reflects the God-image quest of man to understand, to know, to believe, looking at reality as a whole. That is why Aquinas' insight, as important as it is logically, is by itself only dry bones.

55 posted on 05/14/2002 12:03:33 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: HiTech RedNeck
That is why Aquinas' insight, as important as it is logically, is by itself only dry bones.

It seems to me that Calvinists rely on the writings of Aquinas to justify their extreme position on predestination and total depravity, rather than using the Bible to develope their position. One thing is for sure, if one is looking for an example of a person who possessed joy and an abundant life in Christ, John Calvin would be a poor example. One can hardly picture John Calvin singing while being shackled in prison as Paul did. Calvinists are not permitted to be happy, at least that is the case with the Dutch Calvinists. To be happy is a sin because happiness obviously must mean one does not understand the depravity of ones life.

57 posted on 05/14/2002 12:12:51 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
You will not be "in Dutch" with me for this complaint. LOL

In 20-20 hindsight, every major Christian movement has been almost impossibly warped in one direction or the other. Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, all have been rife with disproportion and scandal. The wonder is that Christianity has persisted to this day, not that it has been beset with just about every problem under the sun. This is because it is not kept in motion by human effort, but by the grace of God.

58 posted on 05/14/2002 12:28:37 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
"Calvinists are not permitted to be happy" HUH? I am a Calvinist and very happy! Calvin had no "extreme position", only the Biblical one.
59 posted on 05/14/2002 12:32:58 AM PDT by trevorjohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: trevorjohnson
Extremists tend to be grumpy. Both the extreme Arminian and Calvinist sides tend to boil down to "good luck!" (In keeping your salvation, or in finding yourself saved in the first place.)
60 posted on 05/14/2002 12:46:40 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-199 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson