Featured The Sinners prayer

Tom...

Preferably to anyone and everyone.!

God, youre family and frends...EVERYONE!

Anyone and everyone. You have gone from "lost person" to "witness".

He already knows, but if you want to tallk with Him about it there is nothing wrong with that. He is your Father, and He loves to converse with you.

 

I think you are on to something HOS:applause:......it might be some of that manifesting itself because of rebellion and pride......desiring man to be in control rather than God. They like those spoken of in the sermon dealing with spiritual hearing have substituted man made inventions for God's revealed truths....

 

You double-down!!! This is more or less ostensibly what you think. Why don't you simply say so in so many words? "The non-Calvinist position is the result of the Noetic effects of sin wherein (possibly) regenerate persons have
substituted the truth of God for a lie because of inherent rebellion and pride."

My suggestion Icon, is that you start a thread where you pose this as a legitimate position, and see where it leads....at least we will all know where you are really coming from. Hey, brother, the truth is the truth, and needs to be brought to light.

You do speak one heresy though:

I know of no one on this board who desires this: nor thinks it possible...a basic understanding of Omnipotence on the part of God precludes this possibility by definition...Is it your contention that one must be a Calvinist to believe that God is omnipotent? please explain...start a new thread even where we can all explore these ideas.

Brother...we may be mistaken, but this is arrogance that only you uniquely reek of....pray about this.

 

I just responded to your foul post directed to OLd Regular in the jn 5 thread.

Of course no one will admit to this perverse idea...but this is what is constantly put forth in the noncal posts.....you can deny it all you want, but you would be better to think it over.

I started a new thread that explains this....but most are too lazy to listen to a introductory teaching that would explain and correct errors constantly put forth here. They are not used to be forced to think of biblical concepts, they just want to hear a sermonette...and substitute their own ideas for biblical revelation....

I speak plain enough HOS.....just ask me what you want to know, I will tell you.....but.....let me be the one to tell you what I think....do not strain yourself trying to supply sinister motives , like my friend benjamin likes to do.

I will not shrink back from responding to these ideas.

 

HeirofSalvation....

To be honest, I have seen it and encounterd it and had to just ignore it and continue with the the dialog.

And you are correct, it is almost a always Calvinists. I dont know why.

Its kind of a smug arrogance, with an air of condescending superiority.

Exceedingly inapropiate for Gods people.


And of course, we non-cals can certainly have our "rough and rocky" moments, no dought.

But its almost never eleteist condescention.


I try and just let it roll off and move on with the discussion.

 

YOU have got to be using sarcasm!!!!

But then, you wouldn't acknowledge that Arminians hold to:

Limited atonement to only those who "accept Christ" and then God elects them. Some would label this as "UN limited" but that is a lie; if it were not, then ALL would be saved for the atonement would save even Satan.

Total depravity - though they (without Scriptural support) have some "universal prevenient grace" in which God magically endows everyone but doesn't actually save everyone. Something like a "bait and switch" tactic a narcissistic sales person might use. This is really the only thing that separates Arminian and Calvin on the total depraved state of unregenerate humankind. In essence the BOTH believe in some measure of "Total depravity."

Conditional election - in which MAN is the arbiter and exercises a "free will;" neither of which is Scriptural. God doesn't elect on the condition of man, but upon His purpose and choosing.

The Calvinistic thinker, considers God as the elector and it isn't conditioned in any measure upon man or man's ability.

Resistable Grace - as if mere man can hold back what they don't deserve (definition of God's grace - undeserved merit), and then boast that mere man's liberty places them so equal to God to actually have the rational authority to make a choice. Sounds like the offering Satan presented to Eve.

The Calvinistic thinker considers that God has (as Winman pointed out) placed the names of all those who would ever be saved into the book of life before the foundations of the world(s) were even formed.

God is Love - Let's never neglect that God loves everybody, equally, impartially, and without distinction; despite that the Scriptures teach contrary to this thinking. The extrapolation of this thinking is that God would never send anyone to hell - forever; that the flames cannot be eternal. That time certainly must exist in eternity for then everyone's sins will eventually be "paid up" and everyone will be clean.

Calvinists understand that God is Love, but that God is also Just; therefore God can Love Issac and hate Esau. ​

Folks, look for yourself what Arminians offer and then ask, "Is this man centered, or God glorifying."

Here is a link: Arminianism

 

Can someone help me....

What is this "double down" buisiness?

I dont get it.

 

Are you referring to a comic book character, black jack, finances...?

What do you mean?

 

Agedman...

...

You took issue with...

The scriptures so clear on this. It coulnt be any clearer.

You will have to take it up with God, They are HIS scriptures.

You have been lied to, aged man.

John Calvin and his followers have taught error regarding these issues. According to THE SCRIPTURES God recieves those you WANT Him, and choose him

Where do you get this crazy idea that anyone is BOASTING???? Those who choose Christ are saved by GRACE through FAITH ALONE..

Again, these are Gods scriptures, as opposed to the NON divinely inspired writings of John Calvin.

.The scriptures are exceedingly clear that God saves those who choose (we are not robots) Christ. Those who reject will not be saved.

 

You apparently didn't read the post very accurately.

I was quoting from the link.

That YOU take issue with what Arminian folks consider truth shows how little you seem to understand.

Arminian is generally man centered. It focuses upon what man can do and what man has the freedom to do.

Calvinism is generally God centered. It focuses upon what God can do and what God purposes to do.

Denial of that comparison is denial of the truth - which, if I were harsh in my critical analysis is what most Arminians seem to spout about the Calvinistic thinkers.

 

Agedman...

I have to leave now to make our midweek service.

But I will get this in..

I have never identifed myself as an "Arminion.

I feed on the scriptures with no bias.

Be back later

 

Correct again.....but when you point out something as simple as mis-reading a post...that makes you arrogant and condescending

 

Agedman, I mentioned the "double down", phrase, and you said...

No, the phrase shows up at the beginning of post 84 on this thread and then again near the end of that post. It seems to have nothing to do with the topic..

 

You were not quoting from the link inasmuch as the link does not say that Arminians hold to this as you claim: the link clearly states in reference to Arminian theology:

Unlimited (or universal) atonement
Christ's death was suffered on behalf of all men and benefits all men alike. God then elects for salvation those whom he foresees will believe in Christ of their own free will. This is in contrast to the Calvinist doctrine of Limited atonement.

ICON:
point 1.) AIC did not misread the post or link: Agedman claims he is quoting from the link: but he is not...he is supplying his idea and claiming that his link proves it. If Aged had claimed that 2+2=5 You would be all amens I think.

point2.) AIC in no way made the reference to arrogance and condescention in reference to the post you are speaking of...Yesterday, 06:14 PM post #90
it was referenced here:

Yesterday, 02:56 PM post #85
It is physically impossible for AIC to have been refering to a post which did not yet exist.

 

Really - so when "God then elects for salvation those whom he foresees will believe in Christ" this is not limiting atonement?

What happened to the atonement for those whom God didn't "elect for salvation whom he foresees will believe in Christ" - are they also atoned or not?

It seems (as Winman showed in a thread) that BOTH Calvinist and Arminianist practice some form of LIMITED atonement - but some are maybe more honest? I don't know, yet.

Honesty would dictate that the extrapolation of the Arminian "unlimited atonement" considers there is ultimately no Hell. Example: R. Bell, the late F. Church, universalism, Mormons ...

 

Yes, Really....you were not quoting the link as you claim: but to answer your questions:

No, it isn't...At least not in Arminian theology. A Calvinistic understanding of the Atonement would imply this: But Arminian Theology does not require the same type of Penal Substitutionary and definite view of the Atonement generally believed by Calvinists.

Yes, they are Atoned for: Arminians don't necessarily take the same Penal Substitutionary and definite view of the Atonement that Cals usually do.

I have heard some Arminians will also say that (in a different sense than you would probably normally use it) Atonement is "limited" in a certain kind of way....Just not in the same sense that it is understood by most Calvinists....I have only run into it once or twice....and I barely remember what they were driving at. perhaps someone who has stated that before could shed more light on it.

About the topic: I ran across this rather interesting and well written essay about Atonement: just for anyone interested: http://www.xenos.org/essays/ForWhomdidJesusDie.htm

Read this: http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=thibodaux.The-Fallacies-of-Calvinist-Apologetics.Fallacy-7.Arminianism-Leads-to-Universalism

Generally, this is an unfruitfull kind of statement to make as it is merely viewed as a cheap-shot and a straw-man since naturally: Arminians are not universalitsts...but for anyone who thinks that it is a legitimate concern: the above might be a good starting point. It conveys the simple idea that only ASSUMING a Calvinist interpretation of Atonement as a definite and unconditional act is that the case. It is hard to do...but we have to divorce ourselves of our own pre-concieved ideas in order to properly evaluate an alternative point of view: I am sure you have heard non-Cals say that according to Calvinism God must be the author of sin. You will, of course, deny this: I think (not all forms of Calvinism do) but we do have to at least fairly evaluate their reasoning from their perspective and not ours before we come to these conclusions.

Then try this: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/provisional-atonement-part-1-dealing-with-john-owens-arminian-dilemma/