The D. C. of Hyper-Aminianism beliefs...

I've ranted about this looney a few times on here.


He's an ex-Roman Catholic, but he still believes in venial and mortal sin, still denies the universal guilt of man, and believes in an age of accountability (still haven't found that in Scripture), promotes Wesley's error of moralism and sinless perfection, and though he rightly preaches against the RCC, he still clings to thier blatent semi-Pelagianism.

He seems tough up front, but once you hear him start to expound on anything, his errors and the weakness of his arguments are very apperent. Gene Cook, a Reformed Baptist, completely disrupted and dismantled his arguments on his radio show. Corner is a one trick pony, he rails against eternal security and preaches what essentially a works salvation. He doesn't even go off into any of the other points of Calvinism.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Where do you come up with your "ultra" and "Hyper" modifiers for Arminian teaching? Is it your claim that Arminius himself held to OSAS????!!!

Why in the world would a Calvinist EVER argue that Arminians SHOULD hold to OSAS because "you think it is CONSISTENT with the Arminian POV??"

Isnt it much more "logical" for a Calvinist to INSIST that Arminians admit that OSAS is totally inconsistent with the basics of the Arminian argument???

In Christ,

Bob

 

If Arminius did not hold to OSAS then Armians following that doctrinal model that also reject OSAS can hardly be called "hyper-arminian" since they simply hold to what Arminius held to in that regard.

The OP seems to claim that the fact that this Arminian rejects OSAS is some kind of extreme position "for Arminians" to take. My point is that an Arminian that rejects OSAS is simply following the basics of his/her belief about free will.

And I would think that Calvinists would want to "hold their feet to the fire" insisting that Arminians admit to that.

I think he is a bad example of an Arminian because he labels the other side as "lost" (to my knowledge Arminius never did such a thing)- but not because he rejects OSAS as an Arminian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I do not believe in OSAS but I am truly saved through the blood Christ shed on the cross and grace through faith. I have always been frustrated by comments that people make that say you can't be "truly saved" if you do not believe as they do. I attend a Free Will Baptist Church and some in my church do not believe one can be truly saved and believe in OSAS. Both are wrong. Salvation is Romans 10:9. This verse is a condition of the heart, it's not tied to church doctrine.

NP

 

It may be, he does a lot of debates with atheists, free-willers, mormans, JW's, church of Christ types and the like.

His radio show is called the Narrow Mind.

It's right here:http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/index.php


He debated Corner twice late last year. You can find it somewhere on the site. You can also find the first debate on sermonaudio.com. Corner actually got kicked off the show in a very humerous way the second time, it's definatly worth a listen.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Actually, Arminius himself never came to a solid conclusion about perseverance either way. At least that's the way I've heard it. Remember his case was the same as Calvin's, it wasn't him who pushed those points as we know them, it was those who were read his theological notes. It wasn't until after Calvin died the the Remonstrants pushed doctrine based around Arminius's studies.

Corner's theology is mainly the Wesleyan brand of Arminianism. You know, the "holiness" folks, Methodism, and the like. It's different than the Remonstrants in many areas.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

You're welcome!



Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

The fact that there are many Arminians who hold to the Bible teaching on perseverance does not make them hyper or ultra in this regard. Arminius is not known to have rejected it.

The point remains.

Futher - the whole idea of OSAS goes directly against the Bible teaching on free will (whosoever will... to as many as believed to THEM he gave the right... if anyone hears my voice AND opens the door) so that those who embrace that bible teaching really have "no choice" but to reject the errors of OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Still you have to admit that once you accept free will - it is impossible to hold to OSAS except as a contradictory believe held "anyway".

 

I don't admit that, Bob, and I think it's quite false.

 

What explanation do you use for holding to both? Surely you see that OSAS is a direct contradiction to free will. It would be like saying that Adam had free will but was not allowed to fall.

 

I have the free will to murder someone, but I don't have the free will to undo the murder. I can get my wife pregnant by free will...I can't get her un-pregnant by free will. Your argument doesn't hold water. I have the free will to accept or reject Christ. If I accept that gift, I'm born again. You can't un-born yourself once born.

 

You have the free will to enter a building - you have the free will to leave the building.

As we see the case of Adam - he did not have to "uncreate himself" to fall.

The vines that are in Christ in John 15 are never said to "uncreate themselves" and then get removed from Christ.

in Romans 11 the branches that are in Christ and that remain there "only by faith" did not "uncreate themselves" to get cast out. Paul does not say in Romans 11 "but you should FEAR for if He did not hesitate to uncreate the natural branches neither will he hesitate to uncreate you"... The entire notion of "unborn" or "uncreate" is missing in scripture as something that happens when you are removed from Christ. Instead it is referred to as spiritual death.

 

I have Dan Corner's book, The Believer's Conditional Security. Corner is certainly a "Repeated Regenerationist." I don't know his theological or denominational history, but in reading his work, I came to the conclusion that his view is quite semi-pelagian, and not representative of either Reformed Arminianism or Wesleyan Arminianism in their classical/traditional sense.

JDale

 

Is this a "graft them in again" position that he holds as in the case of Romans 11?