# Dr. McMahon, the "Arminian" . . .



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

I was thinking about just including this post along with my other post regarding the forum where I got called "puritanical" . . . but this was just too rich . . . this deserves it's own thread.

Brandan Kraft, with 5solas.org, just told me that Dr. Matthew McMahon is an "Arminian":

http://forums.5solas.org/showthread.php?t=2246&page=2&pp=15

Matt, have you really converted to Arminianism? 'fess up!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 30, 2005)

Well, I decided to move to Armenia, so I'd have to be an Arme(i)nian. 

Brandan needs to rid himself of his HyperCalvinism (he must not like the article on APM).

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Augusta (Jun 30, 2005)

You should challenge him to a debate one board against another. Although I don't think there is a lot of scholarship going on over there. It might be mean.  Might wake them up a little though.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> You should challenge him to a debate one board against another. Although I don't think there is a lot of scholarship going on over there. It might be mean.  Might wake them up a little though.



I think that's a very good and interesting idea. 

Matt, Scott, Fred, etc. . . . do you like this idea? If Brandan Kraft were to go for it, would it be interesting to have some type of inter-board debate on some topic, like the Law, for example? Of course, rules would have to be carefully set up ahead of time  . . . . Without such "laws", I doubt that Brandan would always refrain from going below the belt.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 30, 2005)

Dr. McMahon a closet arminian - I KNEW IT

That's about the craziest thing I've heard in a while.

I suppose since all the terms in the Christian theological dictionary take on their use differently depending upon what position one themselves comes from (kind of like Bush being a liberal to a Reaganite and so forth) we need a new naming system to make things more clear.

Calvinist 1.1.1.1 = 

Calvinist 1.1.1.2 =

Calvinist 1.1.1.3 =

etc...

Calvinist 1.1.2.0 =

etc...

Calvinist 2.0.0.0, subpart dispensationalist feature (a) =

Calvinist 2.0.0.0, subpart dispensationalist feature (a), section Arminian qualifier (i) =

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 30, 2005)

If McMahon's an Arminian, then I'm a monkey's uncle.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 30, 2005)

This illustrates well the truth in Sproul's point in his _Chosen by God_ that so-called "hyper-Calvinism" would be better referred to as "anti-Calvinism."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 30, 2005)

Do you think sometimes people start websites, and call themselves Calvinists, just to give their Calvinist enemies a black eye? How much of Calvin have any such ones read? 'Course one of 'em has excommunicated poor Calvin. Not Calvinist enough...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Do you think sometimes people start websites, and call themselves Calvinists, just to give their Calvinist enemies a black eye? How much of Calvin have any such ones read? 'Course one of 'em has excommunicated poor Calvin. Not Calvinist enough...



Yeah, that just blows me away . . . one of the hypercalvinist guys saying that a Calvinist cannot be truly regenerate if he believes that some Arminians go to Heaven. And since John Calvin did believe that some Arminians would go to Heaven, he wasn't Calvinistic enough, and therefore was not regenerate.

What nonsense.


----------



## govols (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If McMahon's an Arminian, then I'm a monkey's uncle.



So that means that you get to visit Bubbles at the NeverLand Ranch. Just don't spend the night.


----------



## just_grace (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



Once we are born again all that follows was known by God to start with, why on earth ( in Heaven actually ) would angels 'rejoice' only to be disappointed. A transaction is made for the good, God is Good. And one day we will all praise His Loveliness.

The guy is a loon...


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 1, 2005)

I just did some exploring on that website and all I can say is, "Wow!"
What arrogance and rudeness he treats others with!

Do you think it is possible for someone to be saved while holding on to that doctrine? 

The only thing that makes me think it is possible is all the great things he has to say for Christ and His finished work. 

I mean, how could it be possible for someone to hold Christ in that kind of esteem and NOT be saved? 

Quite a conundrum! What thinkest all ye?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 1, 2005)

1) I retract my statement in the other thread about board wars...apparently ya'll are up for it.









2) I was kinda wondering where in the world he got off calling Matt and Arminianist also





3) I'm not about to be the one to call DG saved or unsaved at this point, just because someone is a conceited...there would be further questioning to be done to attempt to figure that one out...thus, back to number one and the boardwars...though that could still only prove him ignorant rather than unsaved, unless you wish to go by his definition of having to have it altogether?


----------



## Authorised (Jul 2, 2005)

> Dr. McMahon, the "Arminian" . . .








He's looking for a reaction. Here's one, on me.


----------

