Introducing myself... an arminianist

We only know the extent that scripture reveals. Calvinists presume upon the text by teaching that the extext of the HS's work must be effectual simply because we see God work effectually in the lives of his divinely inspired messengers. Proof that God effectually brought Jonah to Ninevah is not proof that he effectually brought individuals in Ninevah to salvation.

Two things are clear to me.
1. The extent of the Holy Spirit's work in bringing the gospel to the world is not limited to the "elect" of Calvinism's dogma.

2. Therefore, the extent of the Holy Spirit's work in the salvation of the lost is not effectual.

Again, I'm not talking about circumstances, but about the nature of the converstion. And as you have stated, the nature of your conversion is no different than that of the apostles.

So, open up the canon and let's add the words of Pastor Shaver, after all he meets the same qualifications as the apostles.

 

Skandelon,

I take umbrage at your insistence on what you think I have said. Go back and reread my posts and you will see that most of my comments were in the form of questions to you. Questions that you then proceeded to answer.

I have never suggested that My words are equal to the words of Scripture that the Apostle Paul penned or those portions from scripture that quoted his words.

You are drawing a conclusion that is simply not true.

 

We only know the extent that scripture reveals. Calvinists presume upon the text by teaching that the extext of the HS's work must be effectual simply because we see God work effectually in the lives of his divinely inspired messengers. Proof that God effectually brought Jonah to Ninevah is not proof that he effectually brought individuals in Ninevah to salvation.

Two things are clear to me.
1. The extent of the Holy Spirit's work in bringing the gospel to the world is not limited to the "elect" of Calvinism's dogma.

2. Therefore, the extent of the Holy Spirit's work in the salvation of the lost is not effectual.

Again, I'm not talking about circumstances, but about the nature of the converstion. And as you have stated, the nature of your conversion is no different than that of the apostles.

So, open up the canon and let's add the words of Pastor Shaver, after all he meets the same qualifications as the apostles. </font>[/QUOTE]The two things that are clear to you are certainly not clear to a vast number of serious Biblical Scholars nor are they clear to me.

Your first point cannot be proven but is your opinion - granted it is an opinion based on your study of the Scriptures but certainly not more seriously arrived at and held than the opinions of those who disagree with you.

Your second point is absurd. If the work of the Holy Spirit is not effectual in the Salvation of the lost then we are all still lost in our sins!

 

Pastor, I'm honestly not trying to put words in your mouth. I know you would never claim to be equal to Paul. My point is simply that you claim to have the same qualifications he has by claiming that the nature of your calling is the same as his, thus you undermine the uniqueness of his call.

If the nature of Paul's calling is the same as yours then what sets him apart except for the fact that he says so. What keeps the other believers of his day from saying, "So what Paul, we were set apart from birth and taught from above too and we all were effectually called, so why should we listen to you as our authority? We were saved and called by the same means as you were though the circumstances may have been different. Why should we listen to you?"

 

I don't think so. Most Calvinists affirm that the gospel is to be preached to all men and therefore its work is not limited to only the "elect". That is a given. You may have misunderstood.

Effectual in this context means that it will certainly have effect, not that it couldn't have effect. You know that. The work of the Holy Spirit in the gospel message is not effectual. That means it does not always have a positive effect. I'm using the term "effectual" instead of "irresistable," so once again maybe you misunderstood not being fimiliar with the terms of our debate.

 

Skandelon,

I understand completely the terms of theological debate, I'm just not sure I've ever nailed your definitions down nor do I particularly want to.

 

Translation: This debate has gone beyond the pat answers that I have grown accustom to giving and therefore I will not participate any further.

 

Translation: This debate has gone beyond the pat answers that I have grown accustom to giving and therefore I will not participate any further. </font>[/QUOTE]No here's the proper translation - It's hard for me to debate anyone who constantly tells me what I'm thinking and what I've said when my own words do not verify that.

You don't need my input to have a discussion with yourself - so go for it. Write a book or better yet teach a seminary class where you can pass out "F's" to people like me.

OR - get serious about LISTENING to what other people are saying or READING what other people are writing!

 

Skandelon,

One more thing - When you preach tomorrow will you preach a Savior who:

"Time after Time He has waited before
And now he waiting again
To see if you're willing to open the door
Oh, how he wants to come in." ????

Or will you preach a Savior who has come to Seek and to Save that which was lost?

 

In debate we draw the implications of what others have said in order to disprove their premise. That is all I have done here. I have taken what you have said and shown you how it undermines the uniquness of Paul's authority as an apostle. I have continually asked what was it about Paul's calling and conversion that seperates him from Calvinistic calling and conversions for all the saved and you can't seem to give me an answer. The only thing you have to establish Paul's authority is the claims he made about himself which are claims that you apparently can make for yourself. So, I have to ask again, what is the difference?

 

Yes.

 

But I forgot to ask - You are preaching tomorrow right?

 

No, I'm not preaching tomorrow, but when I preach next time I will preach about a savior who is patient with men not willing that any of them perish and one who came to seek and to save that which was lost.