Four Gripes about how Calvinists deal with Arminianism

[Sheepdog]

Ok, I was randomly browsing a certain other web forum which will remain nameless (hint, the site start's with a "C" and ends with an "ARM"), and i found an a post which i totally sympathize with... in fact, i suspect mental channeling was involved because i have had the same exact complaints (though not so formulated).

So, i present a portion of the post for discussion here. The original can be found here: http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=151&topic_id=18322&mesg_id=18322&page=

Four Gripes: Gripe Number One

Arminians who know what is and is not classical Arminian theology are not pleased when they are told by Calvinists that Arminian theology holds to libertine free will, that they are Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian or that Arminian theology teaches that people can choose God apart from grace or by not having first been drawn by the Holy Spirit. Arminian theology isn't Pelagian and it isn't Semi-Pelagian but when Arminians hear the charge or assumption of libertine free will they consider the person leveling the charge is uniformed and unwilling to think for themselves because that person doublessly learned it from some "instructive" Calvinist and then it is likely from another lay-person out on the web or one of the many books written for undergraduates from a Reformed perspective.

Four Gripes: Gripe Number Two

Arminians who know what is and is not classical Arminian theology are also not pleased when told by Calvinists, "Well some Arminians believe they choose God through free will." Why is this? because it can by pointed out that such a position is not part of classical Arminian thought.

Four Gripes: Gripe Number Three

Arminians who know what is and is not classical Arminian theology are also not pleased when nearly every Reformed book on theology identifies Arminian theology as holding to an unrestricted, libertine notion of free will and then building upon that false assumption in forming arguments against Arminian thought presuming that their polemics are meaningfully interacting with classical Arminian theology while they are in fact doing nothing but spreading disinformation and creating an atmoshpere of misunderstanding.

Four Gripes: Gripe Number Four

I cannot count how many times I've been told, "I used to be an Arminian and all Arminians believe <insert assertion here>!"

On the libertarian free will issues (which i'm sure is the first thing that will be whined about), his point is that libertarian freewill, in and of itself, is not a vital component of Arminianism, but is a philosophical point tacked on later (IIRC, the poster himself is a soft-determinist, believe it or not). just a brief clarification.

[rhutchin]

Ok, I was randomly browsing a certain other web forum which will remain nameless (hint, the site start's with a "C" and ends with an "ARM"), and i found an a post which i totally sympathize with... in fact, i suspect mental channeling was involved because i have had the same exact complaints (though not so formulated).

So, i present a portion of the post for discussion here. The original can be found here: http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=151&topic_id=18322&mesg_id=18322&page=

Four Gripes: Gripe Number One

Arminians who know what is and is not classical Arminian theology are not pleased when they are told by Calvinists that Arminian theology holds to libertine free will, that they are Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian or that Arminian theology teaches that people can choose God apart from grace or by not having first been drawn by the Holy Spirit. Arminian theology isn't Pelagian and it isn't Semi-Pelagian but when Arminians hear the charge or assumption of libertine free will they consider the person leveling the charge is uniformed and unwilling to think for themselves because that person doublessly learned it from some "instructive" Calvinist and then it is likely from another lay-person out on the web or one of the many books written for undergraduates from a Reformed perspective.

Four Gripes: Gripe Number Two

Arminians who know what is and is not classical Arminian theology are also not pleased when told by Calvinists, "Well some Arminians believe they choose God through free will." Why is this? because it can by pointed out that such a position is not part of classical Arminian thought.

Four Gripes: Gripe Number Three

Arminians who know what is and is not classical Arminian theology are also not pleased when nearly every Reformed book on theology identifies Arminian theology as holding to an unrestricted, libertine notion of free will and then building upon that false assumption in forming arguments against Arminian thought presuming that their polemics are meaningfully interacting with classical Arminian theology while they are in fact doing nothing but spreading disinformation and creating an atmoshpere of misunderstanding.

Four Gripes: Gripe Number Four

I cannot count how many times I've been told, "I used to be an Arminian and all Arminians believe <insert assertion here>!"

On the libertarian free will issues (which i'm sure is the first thing that will be whined about), his point is that libertarian freewill, in and of itself, is not a vital component of Arminianism, but is a philosophical point tacked on later (IIRC, the poster himself is a soft-determinist, believe it or not). just a brief clarification.

The problem, I think, is that Calvinism became known by the acronym, TULIP, which allowed it to maintain some integrity with respect to its classical Calvinist roots.

Arminianism had no such acronym to help people maintain the purity of the Arminian system. Consequently, there are a very few "Arminians" who hold to classical Arminian theology and a great many "Arminians" who define Arminianism as "free will" or by whatever philosophical point they want to tack on.

You classical Arminians can complain all you want, but its your house that is in disarray and its your problem to fix. Calvinists actually help in that effort by continually pointing out the illogical monstrosities invented by so-called Arminians. You should be thanking us, not griping.

Of course, we both share the problem of people who call themselves Calvinist or Arminian and do not have a clue what either means (Geisler being a good example) but who insist on promoting garbage and misinformation about both.

[Xavier]

To add a couple of gripes if I may:
1) Use of term "Biblical Theology" as the "proper" name of their systematic...
2) Use of appeals to prayer or fasting in lieu of offering argumentation...
3) Use of prooftexts which can be interpreted within the other's perspective...
4) Use of links to monogerism.com...

The third one doesn't annoy me as much, but when people present "Killer Verses" that are no such thing... I want to pull my hair out.

Prime examples of these may be found in my brief interactions in the Cook-Gregg debate thread.

Yours,
Xavier

[Ormly]

My biggest gripe is that Calvinist preach one self-centered message that sees God as someone who only saves them. Their faith really is no faith that takes them anywhere in Him but rather is something can be seen in their writers to be only a "self-discipline" course of sorts they must continually embrace instead of the gospel whereby they can keep their rededicator in good working order. They are quick to excuse their failures by crying: "I'm only human and no one is perfect and I don't have to be, Jesus is my savior". I have yet to meet one who speaks of Him as Lord; sold out to God sufficient to even speak of Him in normal conversation after the church service. That's sad.

[Berean Todd]

I have yet to meet one who speaks of Him as Lord; sold out to God sufficient to even speak of Him in normal conversation after the church service. That's sad.
That's an absolute ad hominem and a pathetic excuse for a statement. Ever heard of Spurgeon? One of the best evangelists/preachers ever ... yeah, calvie. Ad hom's ad nothing to a discussion, much like if I said, "All Armineans deny God's sovereignty and worship themselves and not Him."

[Ormly]

That's an absolute ad hominem and a pathetic excuse for a statement. Ever heard of Spurgeon? One of the best evangelists/preachers ever ... yeah, calvie. Ad hom's ad nothing to a discussion, much like if I said, "All Armineans deny God's sovereignty and worship themselves and not Him."
Yeah, but I never met Spurgeon. I meet people like you and form my opinions based on what I read. But now I'm curious, what did Spurgeon ever do beside preach? I know what Finney did.

[Sheepdog]

The problem, I think, is that Calvinism became known by the acronym, TULIP, which allowed it to maintain some integrity with respect to its classical Calvinist roots.

i've been told a few times that TULIP isn't all that Clavinism is. some Calvinists have their own gripes about TULIP

Arminianism had no such acronym to help people maintain the purity of the Arminian system.

the Trinity doctrine needed no such acronym, nor has most any other doctrines. people aren't so stupid that if pressed they wouldn't need such things.

Consequently, there are a very few "Arminians" who hold to classical Arminian theology and a great many "Arminians" who define Arminianism as "free will" or by whatever philosophical point they want to tack on.

or, anyone who disagrees with the Calvinist get labelled as an Arminian, so some just don't know better. others label themselves and being in the "happy middle" for diplomatic reasons.

You classical Arminians can complain all you want, but its your house that is in disarray and its your problem to fix.

it is not our house in disarray anymore than it is Christianity's house that is in disarray because heretical groups like Mormons and J's Witnesses mistakenly label themselves as "Christians." (the Christian house is in disarray, incidentally, but for other reasons.) the real Arminians know what Arminianism is and what Arminianism isn't. we will do what we can to educate the pseudo-Arminians, but you Calvinists are no help.

Calvinists actually help in that effort by continually pointing out the illogical monstrosities invented by so-called Arminians. You should be thanking us, not griping.

ok, thank you for confusing our view with the illogical monstrosities, and thus burning 20 foot tall strawmen. thank you for being willfully ignorant of what Arminianism is, and thus mislabeling those who don't know better. thank you for using lame argument tactics even while being called out by the real Arminians.

your service to making the theology world a better place is much appreciated. :whack:

Of course, we both share the problem of people who call themselves Calvinist or Arminian and do not have a clue what either means (Geisler being a good example) but who insist on promoting garbage and misinformation about both.

true enough.

[Sheepdog]

To add a couple of gripes if I may:
1) Use of term "Biblical Theology" as the "proper" name of their systematic...
2) Use of appeals to prayer or fasting in lieu of offering argumentation...
3) Use of prooftexts which can be interpreted within the other's perspective...
4) Use of links to monogerism.com...

The third one doesn't annoy me as much, but when people present "Killer Verses" that are no such thing... I want to pull my hair out.

Prime examples of these may be found in my brief interactions in the Cook-Gregg debate thread.

Yours,
Xavier

oh, and appealing to "it's a mystery" to escape logical incoherencies, or when it is convenient to do so. granted all systems will inevitably will have to appeal to mystery, it should be a last resort to intensive Bible study, and never really helps with the logic contradictions and such.

[Berean Todd]

Yeah, but I never met Spurgeon. I meet people like you and form my opinions based on what I read. But now I'm curious, what did Spurgeon ever do beside preach? I know what Finney did.
I don't have to defend myself to you ... such as the fact that I am a church planting pastor, that I have been used by God to lead 18 people to the Lord since Jan of this year, the fact that evangelism is one of my gifts and callings. That I have developed classes to train the members of our church in how to evangelise themselves. I don't have to defend the work of my church or to try to show how I live out my faith.

The fact that you dodge every scripture I post, that you throw nothing tangible out but ad hom attacks at either me or GoB personally, or calvinism/reformed theology generally goes to show just how deep you are. So for the record, just what are you doing since you are the one throwing accusations around sir?

[Sheepdog]

agreed. Ormly's posts aren't really contibuting much. i've known many Spirit filled, mature Christians who are also Reformed.

[rhutchin]

i've been told a few times that TULIP isn't all that Calvinism is. some Calvinists have their own gripes about TULIP

I doubt that anyone who has worked through TULIP has problems with it. I have heard some claim to be 4-point Calvinists but that just means that they agree with four of the TULIP points and basically do not understand what TULIP does. Still, TULIP has been an important factor preventing Calvinism from deviating from its classical roots.



the Trinity doctrine needed no such acronym, nor has most any other doctrines. people aren't so stupid that if pressed they wouldn't need such things.

OK. People study doctrines, but few study Arminianism. I think a simple acronym would have helped to maintain Arminianism's integrity with its classical roots.


it is not our house in disarray anymore than it is Christianity's house that is in disarray because heretical groups like Mormons and J's Witnesses mistakenly label themselves as "Christians." (the Christian house is in disarray, incidentally, but for other reasons.) the real Arminians know what Arminianism is and what Arminianism isn't. we will do what we can to educate the pseudo-Arminians, but you Calvinists are no help.

If you are complaining about Arminianism being misunderstood but many of those who misunderstand it claim to be Arminian, then something is wrong in the Arminian house. Real Arminians may know about Arminianism which just means that there are relatively few real Arminians. Calvinists help by holding pseudo-Arminians accountable to explain the goofy ideas that they invent. Arminian philosophy is not well-developed and that, I think, accounts for the ease with which it seems to be manipulated to fit whatever people want to believe.



ok, thank you for confusing our view with the illogical monstrosities, and thus burning 20 foot tall strawmen. thank you for being willfully ignorant of what Arminianism is, and thus mislabeling those who don't know better. thank you for using lame argument tactics even while being called out by the real Arminians.

your service to making the theology world a better place is much appreciated. :whack:

It is the pseudo-Arminians who invent the illogical monstrosities not the real Arminians. It looks like you cannot even tell them apart.

[GoBahnsen]

Gripe, gripe, gripe and gripe. And I've got more :hehe: .

[Xavier]

Gripe, gripe, gripe and gripe. And I've got more :hehe: .
:rofl:... Luckly, not all Calvies fall to the same "gripes"... :smile:

[GoBahnsen]

:rofl:... Luckly, not all Calvies fall to the same "gripes"... :smile:That really gripes me to see the rolling laughing head. Btw, happy birthday to mommy. What a sweet face.

[Xavier]

That really gripes me to see the rolling laughing head.

Oh... Sorry... :blush:

Btw, happy birthday to mommy. What a sweet face.

Be sure to stop by the Wishing Well and tell her... :smile:

[Ormly]

I don't have to defend myself to you ... such as the fact that I am a church planting pastor, that I have been used by God to lead 18 people to the Lord since Jan of this year, the fact that evangelism is one of my gifts and callings. That I have developed classes to train the members of our church in how to evangelise themselves. I don't have to defend the work of my church or to try to show how I live out my faith.
Who's asking you to? --- But your self-praise stinks.

The fact that you dodge every scripture I post, that you throw nothing tangible out but ad hom attacks at either me or GoB personally, or calvinism/reformed theology generally goes to show just how deep you are. So for the record, just what are you doing since you are the one throwing accusations around sir?
The fact is, I don't dodge your scriptures. You've presented none that are relevant to the issues but are ripped from context. "None righteous" is just such a one that Tercel gave an excellent response to you that you, sir, have ignored. That took quite a bit of his time, to be sure, and you haven't even acknowleged it. That's arrogance that goes hand in glove with your self-righteousness.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure how soft determinism fits with Arminianism, though. Isn't one of the main points of Arminianism to show how God is not ultimately responsible for man's choice?

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. By "soft determinism" I mean people choose based on their desires, but they don't choose their desires. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Ormly]

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure how soft determinism fits with Arminianism, though. Isn't one of the main points of Arminianism to show how God is not ultimately responsible for man's choice?

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. By "soft determinism" I mean people choose based on their desires, but they don't choose their desires. Correct me if I'm wrong...How can a God who seeks love from His creation be responsible for the choices made by those He equips to make such choices? How would it be love to Him if not made freely to Him? Can you understand that?

[Berean Todd]

Who's asking you to? --- But your self-praise stinks.

YOU said first of Calvinists:

I have yet to meet one who speaks of Him as Lord; sold out to God sufficient to even speak of Him in normal conversation after the church service. That's sad.

And when I responded in return to that BS, you came back again with:

I meet people like you and form my opinions based on what I read.

Clearly that is making implications about me, along with the ad homs that you throw at everyone. It is as pathetic as your theological reasoning. Since you have none all you can resort to is personal attacks, and then when I call you out on it you play the "oh I'm so innocent" card. Pathetic.

[Spokoina]

My few "gripes", although I prefer the term, frustrations, are:

1. Calvinists who continually insist that Arminians believe they save themselves. This is my number one gag, and I hear it over and over and over.0

2. Calvinists who will argue both sides of the fence with several minutes inbetween, setting up the situation that no matter what you say, they are right. IE:

I say "A". They counter with "B". I counter with "C" They Counter with "A". I say, but that is what I said, "A". And they counter with "B". ad nauseum. This is especially true with calvinists who say we do have free will BUT .....

3. Calvinists, or anyone for that matter, who are sure they are just using scripture with no other influences or interpretations. Ha, no bias in reading?

[Ormly]

YOU said first of Calvinists:

I have yet to meet one who speaks of Him as Lord; sold out to God sufficient to even speak of Him in normal conversation after the church service. That's sad.

And when I responded in return to that BS, you came back again with:

I meet people like you and form my opinions based on what I read.

Clearly that is making implications about me, along with the ad homs that you throw at everyone. It is as pathetic as your theological reasoning. Since you have none all you can resort to is personal attacks, and then when I call you out on it you play the "oh I'm so innocent" card. Pathetic.
Nonsense!

#1 I've never met you. I base my opines on what I read from you. Do you understand that!!?? You've spoken nothing of the Lordship of Christ in your life! So far, just how many you got saved and yer a pastor. What does that say?

#2. IF you think my theology is bad, kindly point it out that I haven't already explained to you in detail adnausm, without tripping and falling all over yourself, if possible. Either way I won't laugh, I promise.