Arminian Aberrations

Well then he needs to explain his position much better than he has done....BTW, I resent being called ignorant. Thats a sure way to get me to resent you personally for such commentary.

 

Oh so he doesnt believe what he (Quantum) said.....then why did he say it? Must we extrapolate out of commentary hidden meanings now? how humanistic is that!?! So if Quantum said "that the atonement is universally APPLICABLE" ....then does that mean Christ through his death on the cross extends atonement to all humans & to all sins ever committed?

 

Is there not a difference between the following:

applicable to all mankind vs. ....... applied to all mankind


I think you are looking for semantics here in order to simply be overly "critical".

BTW: If I were indeed a universalist and believed in my heart that ALL would eventually be saved, I would have no shame or embarrassment in saying so.

 

I don't think so.

If it is it makes the word "applicable" synonymous with the word "available" which I think you already used in that sentence so the word "applicable" would be redundant.

Words matter. I don't think you are a universalist. But neither do I think that EWF was off in pointing out the inconsistency of the TULIP you provided.

When he was scolded by Skandelon, I thought it necessary to point out that his beef was perfectly legitimate.

If the atonement is applicable to all in some way different from being just "available" to all then universalism is true.

Words matter.

 

I think 'available' would be a better choice of wording here.

Atonement is available to all that accept it.

To say that Christ died for me but not for you is arrogant and unbiblical.

Christ died for everyone, and his blood is sufficient atonement for the sins of everyone.

The problem here is not "who" Christ died for?, the problem here is "who" will accept the free gift of salvation?.

John

 

What did Christ's death accomplish, STT?

Did it ACTUALLY atone or what?

 

We dont refer to him as Skandelon around here anymore.....He is "The Mod" Lady Godiva was a freedom rider, she didn't care if the whole world looked, Joan of ark was a Blah Blah Blah....... & then there's MOD! :smilewinkgrin:

 

I don't recall that I offered an "either-or" scenario for you.

YOU may not have studied much of Barth, but I would lay odds that those teachers who have most effected your doctrines have. That is partly why you don't even realize just how liberal you are getting with some of your current ascertions, but that is a discussion for another thread. Back to the gospel issue at hand now...

No, I am not saying that the gospel is JUST a historical record. I AM, however, saying that the gospel is HISTORICAL. IT HAD TO HAPPEN in order for it to have any power. When I suggest that you are involking Barth, what I mean is that Barth saw the "words" of Scripture taking power no matter if there was an actual historical event or not and you are now headed right down that road. You have taken the "kerygma" of the gospel and given THAT power instead of the actual gospel, which is the RECORDED HISTORICAL ACTIONS OF CHRIST. It is Christ that has the power and the recorded words of His actions only serves to point us to Him, who DID the gospel on our behalf. If just words, they are of no worth, save that any of God's words are worthy if only just for the fact that they are of Him.

I expect that you will not get what I am saying here, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt for a while until I see how you respond.

I do not underestimate the power of God's words at all. But His words are powerful BECAUSE He acts on them, not merely because they are words.

Put another way, for God to say something is for it to be. Therein lies the power of the words.

Of course it does... And more, you either admit that what I said is true or you stand outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.

 

I find that you have no qualms whatsoever in responding to persons such as Luke and myself. You, however, leave without responding when someone who typically thumb's up your statements goes off the reservation. Just wondering why that is. Oh, wait, I know... Tacit agreement. It certainly is not for lack of words on your part.

You know what you said. Why are you now backpeddling? As I recall, you were quite adamant that those who disagreed with Calvinism should see their stance as being anti-Calvinistic, I even asked you about it. I'll see if I can find the thread as it is now closed. I often delete closed threads from my cache of saved threads.

Only that I agree that is what you say, not that I see it likewise.

I'll not be embarassed... Promise. Just a nice list like TULIP or LILAC will do. :smilewinkgrin:

For the most part, I only see what people are against around here. Very few will take a stand on what they are FOR. I expect that in a few cases, it would be utterly shocking.

Oh, and thanks Quantum. You published.

 

Thanks for publishing. Discussion is not an attack. Thanks for recognizing that as well.

An attack is, "You are stupid, lost, heathen, and pagan for what you believe." A discussion is, "How do you arrive at the point where you see Christ's work as universal among all mankind?"

 

This is a classic example of an attack...

 

Yea, it's ridiculous.

 

Some of the anti-cal guys are going to look at this as an attack.

I wish they could actually be objective as they read this post and see the p4t has nailed their error.

They seem to many of us to speak out of both sides of their mouth; to want to have their cake and eat it too on a LOT of matters.

They want God to be in control of all things but they allow for a world where trillions of sins and sufferings take place everyday that he never wanted and that he never intended and that he is not controlling.

They want man to be free to CHOOSE to come to Christ and not free to CHOOSE to leave him once they have.

They want man to be born sinners on one hand and on the other they want to contend that a person is not a sinner until they knowingly, volitionally commit sins.

They want God to be in ultimate control of the outcome but they see a world that is shaped all along the way MOSTLY by the decisions of men which God chooses NOT to control. Among those decision is where men will spend eternity and since men DECIDE to go to heaven or DECIDE to go to hell- men are ultimately in control of eternity TOO.

Double speak seems to come natural to them and they seem to not even be able to realize that they are doing it.

 

I receive an infraction from you for this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1793132#post1793132

And webdog receives a thumbs up from you for that.

 

This is Skandelon's modus operandi.

I have concluded that he doesn't do this on purpose. He doesn't even REALIZE that he is extremely biased in his moderation of this forum.

I think he may actually think of himself as wonderfully balanced and fair.

 

GL, a point here, not obvious, is I have some "off record" discussion and "friendship" with EWF, so it will take a good bit for me to see his as attack. I do get grated by a certain poster who simply declares himself correct and anyone who does not see things as he does as errant, deficient and a multiplicity of other "50 cent" words straight from the thesaurus. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with disagreement, but attitudes of arrogant dismissiveness do nothing for respect among believers.