tdowns
Puritan Board Junior
I\'ve read some of the posts in regards to Hank\'s positions and know he holds to a \"If found in Jesus you are the Elect?\" Or something like that.
I have not heard him speak out against Calvinism lately, I\'ve read what some here have said about that. I did here him the other day answer a question about Arminianism.
In a nut shell, and I may be wrong here, but what I believe he said, was that he doesn\'t take a hard stance against Arminianism, even though he disagrees with it,
---because the Arminian\'s goal (or one of them) was to uphold the Sovereignty of God.----
I don\'t remember him giving an example of this, and I\'m wondering how is that possible? As stated on the Fatalism vs Calv. post, seems Arminianism leads to God at some point in time, not knowing, and waiting on his creation to make decisions, which then could lead to Open Theism. How can this be consistent with What Hank was saying?
Anybody know the history (or a rationale) in regards to why Arminianists would think their doctrines uphold the Sovereignty of God?
Thanks,
TD
P.S. The reason I ask this and the \"Is Arminianism another gospel?\" thread is how do we handle our \"Brothers in Christ\" who strongly hold to and preach this position. From that other thread, it seems there are differences in opinion on this. Matthew and Scott B. seem to fall on side of, we should be witnessing to them, or at least calling heresy--Heresy!
Fred seems to say, it\'s wrong, but within the realm of being in the true church. Some would say we should do the same for RC.
Should we treat Arminians (anybody who says we have to help with the salvation process, synergists) like Mormons, or like believers in error?
TD
I have not heard him speak out against Calvinism lately, I\'ve read what some here have said about that. I did here him the other day answer a question about Arminianism.
In a nut shell, and I may be wrong here, but what I believe he said, was that he doesn\'t take a hard stance against Arminianism, even though he disagrees with it,
---because the Arminian\'s goal (or one of them) was to uphold the Sovereignty of God.----
I don\'t remember him giving an example of this, and I\'m wondering how is that possible? As stated on the Fatalism vs Calv. post, seems Arminianism leads to God at some point in time, not knowing, and waiting on his creation to make decisions, which then could lead to Open Theism. How can this be consistent with What Hank was saying?
Anybody know the history (or a rationale) in regards to why Arminianists would think their doctrines uphold the Sovereignty of God?
Thanks,
TD
P.S. The reason I ask this and the \"Is Arminianism another gospel?\" thread is how do we handle our \"Brothers in Christ\" who strongly hold to and preach this position. From that other thread, it seems there are differences in opinion on this. Matthew and Scott B. seem to fall on side of, we should be witnessing to them, or at least calling heresy--Heresy!
Fred seems to say, it\'s wrong, but within the realm of being in the true church. Some would say we should do the same for RC.
Should we treat Arminians (anybody who says we have to help with the salvation process, synergists) like Mormons, or like believers in error?
TD