Wesley was a bad husband; therefore, Arminianism must be false

I originally linked to JD Hall’s bedtime stories as a lark. However, some humor-impaired Arminians revealed their true character.

1.0 out of 5 stars A Book to Give Nightmares, May 18, 2013

By Nelson Banuchi "atdCross"

This review is from: Help! Arminians are giving me nightmares again! (Paperback)

I apologize. The decription is enough to give me the heebee-jeebees. Didn't buy or read the book; don't intend to. Since only a very few are chosen for salvation and many, many will go to eternal damnation (along with all and every infant), the chances of my grandchildren being those for whom God intended to save is awfully slim. Don't want to give them Calvinistic nightmares.

keystone says:

What's your evidence that according to Calvinism, only a few are elect? What's your evidence that Calvinism espouses universal infant damnation?

Nelson Banuchi says:

1. Few saved: Calvin Institutes, 3.24.8.

2. Infant damnaton: Calvin Institutes, 3.23.6; Institutes, Book 2.1.8.

keystone says:

You said "all and every infant." Does Calvin teach universal infant damnation?

BTW, Calvin isn't Calvinism. For instance, Warfield thought most humans would be saved-based on his postmil eschatology in combination with his belief in universal infant salvation.

Have you read B. B. Warfield's articles on "Children," "Christ's Little Ones,'" "The Angels of Christ's 'Little Ones,'" or "The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation"?

According to John Wesley, in his Treatise on Baptism, unbaptized babies who die are normally damned.

1.0 out of 5 stars Paranoia and Arrogance at a Whole New Level, May 19, 2013

By

Craig Alan Loewen "Craig Alan Loewen"

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: Help! Arminians are giving me nightmares again! (Paperback)

Unfortunately, the author forgot to mention that if anybody disagrees with you, following John Calvin's shining example you should either obtain from them a confession of guilt under torture and then behead them (Jacques Gruet - 1547) or burn them alive (Michael Servetus - 1553).

I think we need to be more afraid of Calvinists who can do nothing more than create exaggerated straw man arguments against a theological system that he clearly demonstrates he is completely ignorant about.

keystone says:

I think we have more to fear from devout Arminians like Harry Blackmun, who's responsible for about 56 million (and counting) dead American babies.

Craig Alan Loewen says:

And where did you come up with this little tidbit of information? And what relevance does it have to the fact that the individual who crafted your theology was a tyrant who killed or exiled people who disagreed with him and that his tyranny was a logical result of his skewed theology?

And point, please, to one writing, just one simple, succinct sentence, from Blackmun who said that it was his Arminian theology (as if he followed any theology at all) that compelled him to draft Roe vs. Wade?

Bottom line: Evangelical Christians stand united against the horror of abortion, both Arminian and Calvinist. Deal with it.

keystone says:

Craig Alan Loewen says:

"And where did you come up with this little tidbit of information? "

http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive1999.asp?ptid=&story=%7B002726AD-BE49-4FDF-9AB4-FA5444666FE9%7D&mid=3368

You need to bone up on your own theological tradition.

"And what relevance does it have to the fact that the individual who crafted your theology..."

You mean Isaiah, St. John, or St. Paul?

"...was a tyrant who killed or exiled people who disagreed with him..."

Did he kill 56 million innocent babies?

"...and that his tyranny was a logical result of his skewed theology?"

For which you present no argument.

"Bottom line: Evangelical Christians stand united against the horror of abortion, both Arminian and Calvinist. Deal with it."

Deal with Harry Blackmun-who's one of your own.

B. Henshaw says:

keystone,

How can you say he was a "devout" Arminian? Is it just because we was a Methodist? What kind of Methodist? He was considered one of the most liberal judges ever to sit on the Supreme court. So do you mean a liberal Methodist? Liberal Methodists aren't really all that concerned about doctrine or Arminianism for that matter.

But anyway, I don't think the comments about Calvin were that helpful or relevant either. The problem I have with books like this is they leave so much out of the "Calvinist" worldview, all the ugly parts. And, as the reviewer rightly noted, this book is based on a horrible caricature of Arminianism. That is problematic to me, regardless of the actions of John Calvin or Harry Blackmun (and no doubt they will both answer to God for their deeds).

keystone says:

The UMC has close ties to Asbury Seminary. Do you think Asbury is not Arminian either? Is this the No True Arminian fallacy?

keystone says:

B. Henshaw says:

"this book is based on a horrible caricature of Arminianism."

That's certainly possible. However, none of the reviewers shows any evidence of having actually read the book-much less shown how it's a horrible caricature of Arminianism.

keystone says:

Craig Alan Loewen says:

"And what relevance does it have..."

Simple: guilt by association cuts both ways.

"the individual who crafted your theology was a tyrant who killed or exiled people who disagreed with him..."

Does that mean you agree with Servetus or Gruet?

"...and that his tyranny was a logical result of his skewed theology?"

Construct a logical syllogism to demonstrate how TULIP entails the execution of Servetus.

keystone says:

Craig Alan Loewen says:

"Wow. You really are new to the whole science of debate, aren't you."

Wow. You really are brimming over with spiritual pride. So much for Arminian sanctification.

"As I said, Guilt by Association is a logical fallacy."

A logical fallacy which you committed when you attempted to discredit Calvinism by citing something Calvin did.

"In any formal debate, you would be laughed off stage."

So by your own admission, you should be laughed off the stage.

"But there is a deeper problem in your response. By bringing up a non sequitor [sic] response..."

Actually, my response was a tu quoque response.

"And I don't need to to demonstrate how TULIP entails the execution of Servetus. John Calvin, the origin of your theological system either was directly responsible or approved of his death and 57 others. (Encyclopedia of World Biography)."

You said: "that his tyranny was a logical result of his skewed theology?"

So you need to demonstrate how TULIP logically entails the execution of Servetus.

"(you think I'm Methodist for some reason. I'm not.)"

You're confused.

keystone says:

Craig Alan Loewen says:

"keystone, you are not very talented at the art of debate are you?"

Craig, you are not very advanced in the grace of humility, are you?

"You are indulging in one called Guilt by Association assuming the actions of one person represent the actions of the whole."

Which is precisely what you did when you tried to tar Calvinism with something Calvin did.

"However, you may say, isn't Guilt by Association what you are doing with John Calvin? Well, close, but no cigar. John Calvin is the author of what is known as Calvinism. My charge is that Calvin was a bloodthirsty tyrant and under his leadership in Geneva from 1541 until his death, fifty-eight people were executed and seventy-six were banished."

No, that was not your charge. You said: Calvin's "tyranny was a logical result of his skewed theology?"

I'm still waiting to see your argument.

"If God in His mercy had not ended Calvin's life in 1564, Calvin would have given history a run for one of the bloodiest tyrants in history."

For a corrective:

http://heidelblog.net/2013/04/the-calvin-as-tyrant-meme-2/

keystone says:

Craig Alan Loewen says:

"John Calvin is the author of what is known as Calvinism. My charge is that Calvin was a bloodthirsty tyrant..."

And John Wesley was a bad husband. Therefore, Arminianism must be false.