Yes I would have a big problem with this, however Arminius never denied the Substitutionar death of Christ as stated thus, “That. in consequence of this, Christ the Saviour of the world died for [in place of] all and every man [mankind], so that He obtained, by the death on the cross, reconciliation and pardonfor the sin of all men; in such manner, that none but the fathful actually enjoyed the same (John 3:16; 1 John2:2)” this looks like a teaching on substatution and this is what Jacob taught so I have to think the rush to judgment is a little to soon and uniformed. Yes there were those who followed after Arminius who taught differing views on the atonement that are outside the pale of orthodoxy but he did not and plenty of those who reamined faithful to the orthodox reformed faith who are are in the Arminian camp stayed true to the foundational teaching as well and those who moleded both Calvimism and Arminianism (the so called Moderate Calvinists of which Arminius thought of Himself). One must read more about it as Lavar Burton says before one blankets an accusation that one speaks from lack of full knowledge.

Rev. Patrick Taylor (SBC)

Would you consider a denial of penal substitutionary atonement Christian?

This question of mine was basiccaly not about the Connon of Dort which was historically onesided but to simply ask what makes Jacob Arminius un Christian since the founder of what would be today Five Point Calvinism “Beza” proclaimed him a sound theologian even with his views opposed to that of Beza’s. Also what do you do with those who are not staunck Calvinists but within that house of orthodoxy such as a Prof. Craig Hawkins from Living By The Word radio Ministries whao takes a Lutheran view of one needing to do the believing themselves (Faith) and it not being imputed as Joacob agreed to as well that the gift of Grace being fully unconditional must be accepted by faith of the believer under the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Jerrry Falwell believed this would he now be outside the Christian faith? What must be truly understood is that Calvin, Luther and Arminius were all in the reformed faith searching to work out the theology of the faith that scripture conveys and not one man has the answer entirely for even in Calvinism there were Amillennialist, Dispensationalits and Postmillennialits whao do not hold to the precise perspectives of the founder persay thus we need to be very careful just how we lable who is and is not Biblical for we are all brothers in Christ even us Baptist Cal-Luther-Minians.

Rev. Patrick Taylor

linked on his site “The Heidlblog” found here: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/

that may give insight to Rev. Patrick Taylor’s wonderings as to why Calvinists reject his views. [since he stepped outside of Protestantism’s Sola Fide back toward the synergistic distortion of the pure gospel.

Iwas just wondering just what parts of Arminus’ teachings are unbiblical when his formost professor for which todays Calvinistic view Theadore Beza gave a glorious affirmation as to Jacob’s theological premise as he was being considered for a theological professor ship. Perhaps you should read Dr. Roger Olsons Arminian Theology Myths and Truths and then perhaps you might understand that old Jacob was not so far away of Calvin as you think and the Bible. I wonder do you consider Dr, Norman Geisler unbiblical also for He is not a five point Calvinist either niether is Millard J Erickson, Chguck Swindall, Chuck Smith and the list gose on so how many are not Christians?

Patrick

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/15.20.html Keller is the front page cover story…excerpts:

Keller began talking to anyone who would sit still, asking questions he had learned from the urbanists at Westminster: “What would be a New Yorker’s worst disaster?” and “What kind of church would a New Yorker want to attend?” For months he sat in restaurants, learning New Yorkers’ ways.

Tim found Manhattan non-Christians amazingly, sometimes naïvely, curious…New York is a city of high achievers to whom, Keller says, it made sense that a minister should be a scholar of ancient texts, exposing them to ideas and information beyond their experience. They needed someone who spoke their language, though, and Keller was a quick learner. “I saw New York mentor Tim,” Sherman says. “There’s something about the density of the city, the way your lives get intertwined with a secular culture.”

In the spring of 1989, the Kellers and a small team of locals launched the church in a Seventh-day Adventist building….Only personal invitations brought new people. That was part of the vision: “We want to start a church for you, but also for your friends that you want to introduce to Christ.”

“The most interesting people came,” Tim says. “It was astounding how easy it was to have curious nonbelievers come to church. Before too long there were people in the aisles. There was enthusiasm. There was enormous energy after the service.” By the end of 1989, they had an average of 250 people attending, which was as many as they had hoped to attract in the long run. The next fall, they had 600.

The Kellers stick to a few rules. They never talk about politics. Tim always preaches with a non-Christian audience in mind, not merely avoiding offense, but exploring the text to find its good news for unbelievers as well as believers. The church emphasizes excellence in music and art, to the point of paying their musicians well (though not union scale). And it calls people to love and bless the city. It isn’t an appeal based on guilt toward a poor, lost community.

…MacDonald’s name drew many New York Christians, leaving Redeemer to focus on non-Christians. Longtime believers joined Redeemer only if they caught the vision of creating a church that appealed to their non-Christian friends.

… “A big part is he preaches on such an intellectual level,” said Suzanne Perron, 37, a fashion designer who is one of many who had stopped going to church before she discovered Redeemer several years ago. “You can go to Redeemer and you can not be a Christian and listen to that sermon and be completely engaged.”

I think it is worth mentioning that historian, Dr. Peter Gay, wrote a book on the Enlightenment and discusses some of the background of Arminian theology. He describes Arminianism as having it roots in Neo-Stoicism and that there is much Greek Stoic thinking in Arminian theology. As I understand it, Dr. Gay is a Jew, and not by any means a Christian.

If a non-Christian can understand that Arminian teaching is not Christian, why can’t many Arminians see this? I agree with Dr. Morey’s position that many people who do a serious study of the Bible and what the Bible actually teaches will come to an understanding that Arminianism has many unBiblical aspects, and such people embrace Reformed theology as Biblical.

No, thank you! (for laboring to provide us with this resource)

thanks.