Post by Steve Noel on Jan 23, 2006 18:54:47 GMT -5
Rick,
I don't have a problem with you contending for the faith. I think the way you do it just rubs me the wrong way. That doesn't mean you're proud. I apologize and repent for the unfair accusation. Please forgive me brother. I'm not really used to this kind of thing.
I believe that you and some of the resources you've listed represent Arminian theology in a way that is inaccurate and unfair. I don't believe it's legitimate to appeal to emotions by associating it with Catholicism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, etc. or to bring up people like Clark Pinnock who has clearly gone beyond the traditional Arminian position. This unfairly slants the debate from the beginning.
Grant Osborne wrote,
It would be like me starting out by saying Augustine is considered the father of Roman Catholicism and Reformed theololgy.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Do you understand my point? Regardless of the truth of the above article the association has an effect. I believe it is unwarranted to debate in this way. I simply don't believe there's any value in it. This, of course, is only my opinion. I am well aware that this issue inovolves very serious matters. I understand that emotions can easily heat up on these topics. Yet I think they can be discussed in a way that is fair and loving.
I believe there are many involved in this debate (especially on the internet) that are not operating out of the Holy Spirit. Many of these I choose to stay away from. (i.e. www.evangelicaloutreach.com or www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/calvinismmain.html)
I don't know if I make any sense or not, but I guess I'm just not cut out for this kind of stuff. Regardless, I will be glad to see you and RevK in Detroit. I will be there on Saturday only. Again, I apologize for getting in the flesh.
Note: I think Miles should get the DVD.
Steve
I don't have a problem with you contending for the faith. I think the way you do it just rubs me the wrong way. That doesn't mean you're proud. I apologize and repent for the unfair accusation. Please forgive me brother. I'm not really used to this kind of thing.
I believe that you and some of the resources you've listed represent Arminian theology in a way that is inaccurate and unfair. I don't believe it's legitimate to appeal to emotions by associating it with Catholicism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, etc. or to bring up people like Clark Pinnock who has clearly gone beyond the traditional Arminian position. This unfairly slants the debate from the beginning.
Grant Osborne wrote,
"One of the tragedies of our current situation in evangelicalism is the emotive code-words or labels which we attach to certain positions and which enable us to automatically reject the totality of that position on the basis of the label. One of the worst of these 'code-words' is 'semi-Pelagian' which means automatically that the position is a-biblical, and that the data within need not be studied further. To many strong Calvinists any Wesleyan-Arminian position is automatically 'semi-Pelagian."
It would be like me starting out by saying Augustine is considered the father of Roman Catholicism and Reformed theololgy.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Lastly, Augustine's doctrine bears an eminently Catholic stamp and is radically opposed to Protestantism. It is important to establish this fact, principally because of the change in the attitude of Protestant critics towards St. Augustine. Indeed, nothing is more deserving of attention than this development so highly creditable to the impartiality of modern writers. The thesis of the Protestants of olden times is well known. Attempts to monopolize Augustine and to make him an ante-Reformation reformer, were certainly not wanting. Of course Luther had to admit that he did not find in Augustine justification by faith alone, that generating principle of all Protestantism; and Schaff tells us that he consoled himself with exclaiming (op. sit., p. 100): "Augustine has often erred, he is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers." But in general, the Reformation did not so easily fall into line, and for a long time it was customary to oppose the great name of Augustine to Catholicism. Article 20 of the Confession of Augsburg dares to ascribe to him justification without works, and Melanchthon invokes his authority in his "Apologia Confessionis." In the last thirty or forty years all has been changed, and the best Protestant critics now vie with one another in proclaiming the essentially Catholic character of Augustinian doctrine."
Do you understand my point? Regardless of the truth of the above article the association has an effect. I believe it is unwarranted to debate in this way. I simply don't believe there's any value in it. This, of course, is only my opinion. I am well aware that this issue inovolves very serious matters. I understand that emotions can easily heat up on these topics. Yet I think they can be discussed in a way that is fair and loving.
I believe there are many involved in this debate (especially on the internet) that are not operating out of the Holy Spirit. Many of these I choose to stay away from. (i.e. www.evangelicaloutreach.com or www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/calvinismmain.html)
I don't know if I make any sense or not, but I guess I'm just not cut out for this kind of stuff. Regardless, I will be glad to see you and RevK in Detroit. I will be there on Saturday only. Again, I apologize for getting in the flesh.
Note: I think Miles should get the DVD.
Steve