Actual Non Cal Doctrine

I think it's somewhat shameful that any person who is a Christian can place their beliefs in view of all, and can only accept comments from those who endorse all that is said. Those persons are considered "friends." But that's not Scripturally what a "true" friend is.

Any person who opposes some things said, points out deficiencies, well, they're to be considered an enemy. Most unwise and not reflective of humility, honesty, or a humble walk.

But the point is that within Christendom we have made a product that cannot sit back and take criticism of their theology, nor can this product avoid ridiculing the person offering a critique.

In my critique here, there were some compliments for and of a brother, while at the same time a critiquing of saids theology. Any honest look at the critique would offer some valid points to consider, and deficiencies would be made aware, but, I don't expect there to be an honest view from too many, only from perhaps a few. Jeering and ridiculing? That is to be expected behavior.

A wise person would take an honest look at the critique and the deficiencies within their theology.

Those applauding saying it is "spot on" implying it is "truth" need to really rethink their position, or, go publish the theological position as reflecting all truth, which is virtually what they are implying.

The applause is not really an all out acceptance of the theological stance, because an honest critique would expose some flaws. Rather the applause is meant to demean others who disagree, while leaving a brother in his deficient position theologically, not facing the errors held theologically.

Yep, those are what you call real friends biblically, correct?

- Peace

 

I suggest doing what Mandym did... Post your own framework and defend it positively.

 

Yes. That is a starting point.

 

No problems there. And no problems disagreeing with someone either, just simply accept that others can feel as strongly as anyone else about their theological convictions. I try not to "slam" theological positions different from my own, but rather attitudes expressed toward those who are different. I respect ones position on calvinism .... no matter to what degree I disagree.

 

A base display of ridicule is seen too often when another makes a post on certain tenets that some hold to. To hear the name calling and pejorative laden replies filled with things synonymous to and including calling another immature, childishness, snide &c is the practice of some versus actually debating and critiquing the facts presented of what some others in fact believe, whether one wants to admit this to be fact or not.

The task at hand to discuss, sharpen, and critique theology, to expose error and herald truth is of way too much importance than to come down to some others into their arena of ridicule and jeering and engage with them in it.


- Peace

 

I confess I do it when I see it exhibited, perhaps I am determined to point it out.

 

think that major point that cals would disagree with the brother is as regards to basis of Gods election...

NOT based upon waiting on MY decision to receive Christ, but that God freely determined to save us by Act of His Will.Period!

As we still have to work around this mistaken belief that man still actually has retained enough free Will after the fall to 'save ourselves"...

 

The non cals theology is that man was NOT made spiritually dead by the effects of the fall, and that we still have left enough free will to make the decision to accept/reject Christ "on our own"

Where is the misrepresenting the position ?.

the basis of election in call here...

cals see it based upon God, non cals based upon man!

 

There is no misrepresentation. First fact.

But this is typically how some persons debate, by entering into a thread with the first priority: pejoratives.

I find it of great interest that the slinging around of terms such as "childish" "snide" "hypocritical" &c are brought in with absolutely no factual rebuttal of the teachings that some hold to, then to see this wording as a signature "What you say to and about others says a whole lot about you."

How true.

This happens as if the initiator of a thread had already personally attacked the respondent.

The teachings I presented from others are true. Second fact.

Instead of attacking false teachings, there is instead an attack on a person that is completely unjustified, and as stated "says a whole lot."

Brother, don't go down to them and fight in that arena. It's not worth it.

- Peace

 

Do you view yourself as being an Arm regards to sotierlogy, or a non cal?

Difference being that Arms agree with cals that as result of the fall, we cannot come to christ by our 'Free wills" as we all still need to have God enable us before that!

non cal see as as still able to 'freely respond"

 

I suppose that I could be called a TUP. I don't believe in a limited atonement and the bible clearly says God's grace can be resisted. Israel proved this to be so more times than I can count. So that leaves out the L and the I, hence I am a TUP.

 

And that combined with a plastic snap-tite lid is tupperware... :laugh:

 

I like tupperware. :tongue3:

 

basically though, we shouldbe able to agree that main differences beyween cals and non in salvation are:

cals see the fall making man dead and unable to respond to Gospel . period
cals see God basing election on Himself alone, Not upon him either seeing our faith in a future sense, or else based upon us responding correctly!