Good job! There are so many Calvinists videos on YouTube so its nice to see an Arminian video.
rgmpilgrim@aol.com said…
Did I actually hear you right? DId you say something about "thats why there are many Arminians in England and America." I'll have to listen again soon.... Rushing now. (I downloaded it).
It seems like the concluding decades of the 20th C. saw almost all who could or should have had a stronger Arminian leaning (love and justice base) becoming Calvinist compromised in varied ways without even realizing it. It was because of the abused Romans 7 and scribal-errors-necessarily-in-the-Greek-text mentality that increasingly crossed all religious academia boundaries beginning in 1900. Hence Arminianism seems, in my experience to be maligned on every hand - at least by radio/TV preachers and teachers! Do we have any real heavyweights in the Bible bookstores either?... besides some Pentecostalists who get off into new revelation and worldly ministry too?
Great video! Thanks. I never finished reading the biography on Arminius I began, but had pulled it back out last week as I was digging through my boxed up library.
Keep up the good work! We need much more of this in the Final Reformation.
rgmpilgrim said…
I gotta say it. YOu are very kind. But I think that Calvinism is as diabolical as it was for Calvin to have a man killed in the name of religious convictions.
The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men was not Calvin's motto I do not think.
On the other hand Jude made clear that there is something which we must "earnestly contend" for. It is the faith that JESUS Christ presented to us, and that faith did NOT include an option at thinking that God has not revealed whom he would elect, does it? Jesus is the revelation of the Father and Jesus was a first class gentleman, until he met up with the temple priest/businessmen.
Further does not that faith for which we "agonizo" preclude that those who call God's wisdom arbitriness and God's justice, non-justice are to be viewed as "un-godly" and as servants of the Enemy?
Perhaps you should beware being too "harmless?" This is war, albeit war in a spiritual theatre.
Stay armed and stand my brother! :-) Roy
rgmpilgrim said…
Ooops, sorry. "Further does not that faith for which we "agonizo" preclude that those who call God's wisdom "the ARBITRARINESS of God, and God's justice, non-justice are to be viewed as "un-godly" and as servants of the Enemy?"
In his second chapter in the book The Most Neglected Chapter In The Bible the author boldly claims and classifies this little heard of character quality of God: The arbitrariness of God.
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,...
Steve Hays added his thoughts to a discussion I had with Paul Manata on choice and determinism . Steve says: Dan fails to distinguish between semantic equivocation and conceptual equivocation. Between the meaning of words and the meaning of ideas.The compatibilist/incompatibilist debate is fundamentally a debate over the concept of freedom, not the meaning of words in a dictionary. This seems like a key issue, because it moves the debate away from exegesis to philosophy. The question is not if philosophy is permissible and useful in theology. I am not opposing all philosophy; only the practice of reading technical philosophical definitions into scripture. Nor is the question if setting up technical definitions is normal philosophical behavior. But philosophy can be discussed in ordinary language by “tight wording” and specificity. Indeed scripture discusses philosophy in common language. To show that I have no hard feelings towards setting up special definitions in philosophical ...
The Scholastics used to ask “does predestination place anything in the predestined?” A relevant question indeed concerning Acts 4:28. Consider the translation change from the 1984 NIV to the 2012 ISV: “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” 1984 New International Version “to carry out everything that your hand and will had predetermined to take place” 2012 International Standard Version The NIV speaks of God’s choice – a mental resolution on His part – the ISV speaks of God’s actions impacting and determining the events. In the NIV, God’s mind is set; in the ISV the events are set. The Greek term proorizo is flexible in either direction – both translations are permissible. Yet the ISV clarifies the ambiguous term in favor of Calvinism. The argument for determinism based on the ISV is simple – God predetermined sinful actions for which man is morally responsible, therefore compatible determinism is true. But this argument is not quite so ...
Comments
God be with you,
Dan
It seems like the concluding decades of the 20th C. saw almost all who could or should have had a stronger Arminian leaning (love and justice base) becoming Calvinist compromised in varied ways without even realizing it. It was because of the abused Romans 7 and scribal-errors-necessarily-in-the-Greek-text mentality that increasingly crossed all religious academia boundaries beginning in 1900. Hence Arminianism seems, in my experience to be maligned on every hand - at least by radio/TV preachers and teachers! Do we have any real heavyweights in the Bible bookstores either?... besides some Pentecostalists who get off into new revelation and worldly ministry too?
Great video! Thanks. I never finished reading the biography on Arminius I began, but had pulled it back out last week as I was digging through my boxed up library.
Keep up the good work! We need much more of this in the Final Reformation.
The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men was not Calvin's motto I do not think.
On the other hand Jude made clear that there is something which we must "earnestly contend" for. It is the faith that JESUS Christ presented to us, and that faith did NOT include an option at thinking that God has not revealed whom he would elect, does it? Jesus is the revelation of the Father and Jesus was a first class gentleman, until he met up with the temple priest/businessmen.
Further does not that faith for which we "agonizo" preclude that those who call God's wisdom arbitriness and God's justice, non-justice are to be viewed as "un-godly" and as servants of the Enemy?
Perhaps you should beware being too "harmless?" This is war, albeit war in a spiritual theatre.
Stay armed and stand my brother! :-) Roy
In his second chapter in the book The Most Neglected Chapter In The Bible the author boldly claims and classifies this little heard of character quality of God: The arbitrariness of God.