tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post4363090813834594420..comments2022-11-27T16:19:35.248-05:00Comments on The Biblicist Cajoneador: Arminians don't evangelize!Gary Bisaga (aka fool4jesus)http://www.blogger.com/profile/16238954438323198854noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-78636680470556825892008-11-21T20:14:00.000-05:002008-11-21T20:14:00.000-05:00Gary, thanks. It's probably just my experience bei...Gary, thanks. It's probably just my experience being brought up presbyterian. Calvinism was a tough box for me to break out of, sociologically, theologically and Scripturally. <BR/><BR/>I think where the Arminian discussion ends up is not about two wills but about omnipotence. You end up having to say that God chooses to limit his ability to save people because coerced love is not love. I don't see it as a two wills problem. <BR/><BR/>Some people have put it that Calvinism is God won't save everyone and Arminianism is God can't save everyone. Both are caricatures of course.Will Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742743446415304322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-50773973439980677352008-11-21T15:31:00.000-05:002008-11-21T15:31:00.000-05:00Will, thanks for your comments. We must be reading...Will, thanks for your comments. We must be reading different things because I have never read ANYBODY present Calvinists as being the only ones who evangelize. I'd be interested to see a cite on that. OTOH, I've heard hundreds of times that Calvinism discourages evangelism, that all great evangelists of the past and present are Arminians. I don't doubt you, just wondering what it is you're reading.<BR/><BR/>Regarding two wills in God, I totally disagree with you. It is absolutely a problem for all of us. If God's only will is for all to be saved, why doesn't He just save everybody? The answer (which I've heard many Arminians express): because His higher will is that man's free will be respected. It's true that most Arminians I've talked to (I'm not putting you in this category) don't think it through far enough to posit a "two wills" theory. But if they did, they would have to.<BR/><BR/>In fact, many do, just not in those words: they rely (too heavily in my opinion) on the idea of active vs. permissive will. Now, I agree that idea has some merit; just pointing out that what is that, except a two-will theory?Gary Bisaga (aka fool4jesus)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16238954438323198854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-91864381392471593522008-11-21T15:18:00.000-05:002008-11-21T15:18:00.000-05:00Gary, sorry I just discovered your response here. ...Gary, sorry I just discovered your response here. I'm not claiming that Edwards, Spurgeon, etc are not consistent Calvinists. My main point was that the historiography given by Calvinists is skewed in that it presents Calvinists as the sole evangelizers. Names such as those I mentioned I removed from history, or their Arminian belief is seen as an aberration. <BR/><BR/>Regarding two wills, I see this as a Calvinist problem. Arminians say God has one will -- he wants you to be saved. Mosts Calvinists, sparing the truly consistent, will have to resort to the two wills theory. What God really wants, and what actually happens. Otherwise you end up with questions like why babies are aborted. Did God will it?Will Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742743446415304322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-86793297014423747662008-01-03T18:27:00.000-05:002008-01-03T18:27:00.000-05:00Will, thanks for your comment, but please don't mi...Will, thanks for your comment, but please don't misread my purpose here. I am not claiming that Calvinists of the past have been more evangelistic than Arminians. I'm just illustrating the argument that Calvinists don't evangelize is false if you look at historical figures, and more importantly (for this article anyway) arguing that the idea that Arminianism discourages evangelism has as much credibility as Calvinism does so.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how you are so sure that Gill and Owen did not evangelize; but, even if that were true, if you think Spurgeon and Edwards not consistent Calvinists, I submit respectfully that you have a lot to learn about their beliefs, and about Calvinism (as opposed to hyper-Calvinism) in general.<BR/><BR/>Finally, how can an Arminian claim that God wants all to be saved, when there's His respect of our free will to deal with? The answer is usually that He both wants everybody to be saved and wants their free will preserved. In other words, Two Wills in God. We also say there's two wills in God, though we make it more explicit: God wants all to be saved, but His overriding desire is that His glory be increased. If you don't understand this, I submit that you totally misunderstand Calvinism.Gary Bisaga (aka fool4jesus)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16238954438323198854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-43577625275826141412008-01-03T18:05:00.000-05:002008-01-03T18:05:00.000-05:00The names of Whitfield, Spurgeon and Edwards conti...The names of Whitfield, Spurgeon and Edwards continually come up because they are promoted by Calvinist historiographers. Moody, Torrey, Booth, Asbury, and others are not talked about even though their efforts would go toe to toe with those named. In reality the evangelistic impulse in Church History does come from the belief that God wants all to be saved, therefore most of the great evangelists of the past have held to either a modified Calvinism, or some kind of Arminianism. The consistent Calvinists like Gill and Owen really didn't have to bother with it.Will Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742743446415304322noreply@blogger.com