Arminian Aberrations

Wonder if Skan would tend to see it as the Gospel "becoming the word of God" to save us once we receive it by faith?

that its power we have to activate ourselves, as we determine what the result of it hitting us is directly?

 

I know you are in jest, but whatever floats your boat. By now you know why I am saying what I am saying and it is not pure perjorative.

I've been asking all those who are "against" to put forward their own positive statement of faith and doctrine. So far, ONE has responded that I've noticed. Funny thing was the other anti-cals jumped on him for doing so becasue some of HIS points of doctrine did not match their own (which they refuse to publish, but the attacks come nevertheless).

So, here goes again... Publish a positive doctrinal framework for the anti-cal position instead of just being anti-cal.

 

Yep, because I suspect a similar response....a bunch of out of context quotes that don't say what they are being accused of saying... :smilewinkgrin:

For you, does sticking one's head in the sand equal not responding to every random disagreement of those who happen to agree with me on one soteriological point?

If so, You need to stop sticking your head in the said with "SOME" of what transpires in the anti-arminian movement. That is what I'm calling it now. :smilewinkgrin:

I never said that. Please quote my actual words in context or leave my name out of it.

We, non-Cals, make PLENTY of positive affirmations of our doctrinal views. There are countless statements of faith, commentaries and the like from non-Calvinistic scholars. There are countless posts from me and many others regarding our POSITIVE view on election, our interpretation of passages such as Eph 1 and Romans 9, etc. The fact that you apparently have your head in the sand as to our positive affirmation is not my fault.

 

Do arms view faith as inherit in all peoples ?
What did the fall of Adam, if anything, do to free will of mankind?

 

He didn't preach the gospel. He told elements of truth contained in the gospel, but he didn't preach the gospel. Where did he mention the cross, atonement, resurrection and call them to repentance and faith? What kind of gospel doesn't mention those elements? ...one that hasn't been fulfilled yet?

What did Jesus say? He told them to drink his blood and eat his flesh without much explanation as to what that meant. He was clearly provoking them to leave...He was trying to drive them away...everyone of them except the 12 who the Father had given to HIM. The gospel wasn't even understood by the apostles until after he was raised up and that is when Jesus sent them to preach it into all the world. Peter preaches and 2000 of the same Jews who cried out 'crucify him' come to faith. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING BLINDED. It wasn't even until much later when Paul is called to go to the Gentiles and Peter has his white sheet dream that the gospel is sent to the Gentiles which was God's means of 'granting them faith.'

But, why do you assume an outward means OF GOD (i.e. the gospel) can't affect someone inwardly? Why must the means be inward to be effective? And why must it be irresistibly applied for God to get the credit? [please actually answer these questions]

Nice.

The gospel is the means used to provoke or bring change. The milk or chocolate does nothing to provoke because it isn't OF GOD. The Gospel is the power OF GOD unto Salvation and its the means through which life change is accomplished. Just because someone can choose to trade the truth of it in for a lie and grow hardened to it doesn't make it insufficient to accomplish it purpose to inform and enable the hearer to be reconciled. The gospel is an appeal for enemies of God to be reconciled. There is NO REASON to believe that it will return void by having NO EFFECT on the mass of humanity.

This assumes that it is the will of God to save people irresistibly rather than by the means I've just presented....which once again is question begging.​

 

Does it have to be 'either-or'?

I've not studied much of Barth, so I can't speak to that, but are you saying the gospel is just a historical record? I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. I think it is a historical record, but I think its also 'the power of God unto salvation' as they are words of God brought to us through divine inspiration about the works, teachings and truth of Christ. Any appeal sent BY GOD to the world for the purpose of bringing reconciliation must be more than a historical record.

Jesus said, "The words I speak to you are spirit and life." And He himself is even referred to as the Word. You can't underestimate the power of HIS words...even if brought to the world through broken vessels. And Jesus even told us in John 12 that it is by his words that we will be judged...why wouldn't it be by those same truths that we can be set free and saved?

Agreed.

:BangHead: Wow. That doesn't even deserve a response. Wow....

 

Here is a good acrostic I like, don't fall out of your chair, I am a TULIP.

T Totality of mankind are spiritually depraved in their fallen spiritual condition as a consequence of Adam's sin.

U Unrequited action of God's grace has acted to redeem and restore mankind through Jesus Christ without express or implied contingency of such divine action.

L Limitlessness of God's redemptive and restorative action in Jesus Christ makes His work universally available and applicable to all mankind.

I Individual response of receptivity of faith allows God's grace action to be personally efficacious in the new spiritual creation of the Christian.

P Preservation of the Christian in this relationship is divinely enacted in accord with the perseverance of faithful receptivity of God's grace action in a dynamic continuum unto eternity.

 

But in the place where you asked that, an individual Webdog in this instance, actually responded publicly to a number of clarifying questions where you and everyone else is free to read the responses in context.

I did not do "similar" to what I did before. Webdog doesn't particularly care for the fact that he got played a little bit, but the choices to respond or not were always his. I just asked the questions and he responded.

If so, You need to stop sticking your head in the said with "SOME" of what transpires in the anti-arminian movement. That is what I'm calling it now. :smilewinkgrin:[/QUOTE]

I know you read that thread. We were going back and forth until Webdog wrote what he wrote, then CRICKETS. Yeah, right...

But you did in the other thread! You specifically wrote that the movement was "anti-Calvinism" and you know you did. I even questioned you on that to make sure that was your intent. As I recall, you even got a bit snarky in your response.

I'm not talking about off-the-board "scholars" and you know it. I am specifically asking people who post on this board to publish their doctrinal framework in a positive manner (in other words, not just an "against" response to someone else's doctrine) so as to allow everyone to see precisely where that individual stands in his or her doctrine. That will eliminate errors where one person "thinks" that they understand where the other is coming from, only to be corrected, then corrected again and again.

If any, save Mandym, have done so, I've not seen it and I read quite a bit around here. Just point me to the links and I'll be satisfied.

 

Read more carefully...I didn't say I didn't read them, I said "respond." Just because I see something I disagree with doesn't make me obligated to respond to it, especially when I know enough about the person to know what they mean. As I explained before, much of the problems would be solved by defining the terms of the debate. I don't like some of the wording Winman uses, just like he doesn't like some of mine, but we have differing definitions of terms and I know (generally speaking) his intent....so I don't feel a need to engage. I think its similar with you and Luke or others if you are being honest about it...

I used the term "anti-Calvinism?" Can you link to that post please? I honestly don't remember using that term.

I said the unifying point of agreement is our rejection of the belief that God preselects certain individuals to effectually save, but that we certainly have other positive affirmations of faith that include but are not limited to our views on salvation, election, predestination and the like. Is that what you mean?

I did so in a recent thread regarding Romans 9 but you haven't engaged there....

I can recall dozens of other positive affirmations of our beliefs.... Do you need me to list some for you or would you rather me save you the embarrassment? ;)

 

so by your own admission you agreed to "playing me" and not employing any kind of socratic method, making you a liar who employs sleazy debate practices. Again, you still continue to quote me out of context and not deal with was actually said, in context, in reply to specific questions. You have now lost any and all respect from me.

 

So your a universalist!

 

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:


Now, I can respect the fact that one has decided to put forth his doctrine.

Problem is, faith is a proof, not a response in the sense he descibes it. It's still making action of man the cause, which is fitting to the staus quo of their teachings.

The "P" part? Salvation is seen as carnally secure, "as long as" is the scarlet thread in the statement.

There are more problems, but we're about to eat. :thumbsup:

 

Im not attacking the guy, just stating the obvious.....this is his commentary " L Limitlessness of God's redemptive and restorative action in Jesus Christ makes His work universally available and applicable to all mankind."

Then the natural next question is & will always be " Then why are all NOT Saved?"

 

there was no implication that you were attacking the guy. :love2: :D

 

How can you arrive at such an ignorant position based on what he said? Atonement...learn what it actually is and the purpose it actually serves.

 

I think perhaps you might misunderstand "applicable", oh never mind, not in the mood to haggle, just wanted to offer some positions.
BTW EWF, I did not take your response as an "attack". A questioned disagreement, but not an attack.

 

:thumbs:

Even if they would study some of 'their own' Calvinistic scholars such as AA Hodge, C Hodge, Shedd, Dabney and the like they would better understand the universal sufficiency of the atonement....hey, and maybe even believe it and still wouldn't even have to give up their "Calvinism" to do it, much less become a "universalist." :praying:

 

Yes, the intention is universal sufficiency, not necessarily universal application. But I most certainly would not be disappointed if all of creation and humanity was redeemed.

 

Webdog,

Maybe you can explain it for us:thumbs::thumbs:


Does your idea of an atonement actually atone..or is it only potential...

 

This is bull.

Quantam said that the atonement is universally APPLICABLE. It applies to all people. This means that all people have the atonement applied to them therefore all people are saved.

That is universalism. He doesn't really believe that is my guess, but it is what he said.

The Calvinists you list here, like Hodge, express what I believe. That the atonement is sufficient to save every person in the history of the world and a trillion worlds of sinners like it.

He did not pay just so much for so many.

That is not what quantum is saying.