He who must not be named

Not this guy

.
.






.
.

.

.

..

.

This guy

.


















.

.
.
.
Why do so many evangelicals who hold that Christ died for all, God doesn't unconditionally predetermine peoples eternal destinies and that God's grace is resistible not call themselves Arminians? I have come across many people who's reaction to Calvinism is to shudder and ask if that's true what's the point of it all, yet they don't want to be called Arminians. Baptists Church's contain one of the largest group of Arminians around today, but hardly any of them claim the name.

Comments

Anonymous said…
In my not-so-worthy opinion, it is because Baptists think that if they call themselves Arminian, then they have to hold to Conditional Perseverance -- that one can lose his or her salvation.

I am trying to change that. Arminianism is big enough to include both views in its system.

Wish me luck.

Billy
January 4, 2008 at 12:57 AM
kangaroodort said…
Nice post. Very funny. I agree that there should be no reason to shy away from calling oneself Arminian. I don't necessarily agree with everything Arminius wrote (nor am I familiar with everything), but I agree enough to say my beliefs on soteriology are more in line with his than any other scholar.
January 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Billy,

I think your right that the misconception. May God bless your efforts.

God be with you,
Dan
January 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Ben,

Thanks for stopping by. I have found a few things (but only a few) that I disagree with Arminius on. But all in all, I consider myself a fan.

Just a bit of background on myself... When I was in High School, a Calvinist friend challenged me on some issues and for a while I became a reluctant Calvinist. I was never comfortable, but I didn't have a better way of explaining certain passages. One night I read Hebrews 10:26-29. I said to my self, no way, Calvinist can't be right. But I didn't have any Arminian resources to turn to. I finished up reading just the bible.

In college, the library had a copy of Arminius' works. At the time there was no Piririlli or Olsen. Wesley seems superficial to me, and I was unaware of Shank, Goodwin or Wiley. So I just had the Bible and Arminius. Reading through his stuff was very hard. His lingo is packed with complex concepts. I would say that I probably got about 1/2 of what I read, till I went back and read Aquinas' Suma Theologica. That, for me, was the key for unlocking Arminius. When I re-read Arminius I was convince that he really had a firm grip on the issues related to predestination.

I have read a number of other authors (both Calvinist and Arminian) since then. I am convinced that, on the topic of predestination, no one else spent as much effort or understood the issues as clearly as Arminius, or explain scripture as well.

God be with you,
Dan
January 4, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Anonymous said…
Dan,

Thank you for setting me straight on the Calvin/Beza/Arminius issue on the SEA page. Whew! I needed that correction. You are right: at times it is difficult to navigate through the reading of Arminius' Works, and I was having a bit of trouble following the regeneration comments and his purpose for quoting those two.

Have you ever heard of the book "God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius" by (Calvinist) Richard A. Muller? It is incredible! It is very expensive (Amazon.com, like $130 or so).

Muller came to the same conclusion as you: Arminius has to be understood in light of Aquinas (and Augustine and Peter Ramus). I have been reading through it when I can (the library's copy at Southeastern).

More than anything, I'm amazed how this Calvinist can be so unbiased toward Arminius. It is truly a treasure. Even at the outrageous price, I intend to buy a copy when I get the cash.

See ya bro.

Billy
January 5, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Billy,

Yep. I read it. It's quite complex, but fairly good. That book pointed me back to Aquinas. So today, if there's a topic Arminius addresses, or a term he uses that I don't understand (particularly if it's a philosophical concept), it helps to read what Aquinas said on the subject.

God be with you,
Dan
January 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Kevin Jackson said…
John Wesley: To say, "This man is an Arminian," has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, "This is a mad dog." It puts them into a fright at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.

(Things haven't changed much in 250 years)
January 5, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Pizza Man,

Thanks for stopping by. Yep, things haven't changed much.

God be with you,
Dan
January 6, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more