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.
Arminian Aberrations
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by preacher4truth, Jan 28, 2012.
Page 5 of 10
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
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.
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. -
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 -
Did it ACTUALLY atone or what? -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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.
Put another way, for God to say something is for it to be. Therein lies the power of the words.
-
Skandelon said: ↑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...Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑I used the term "anti-Calvinism?" Can you link to that post please? I honestly don't remember using that term.Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑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?Click to expand...
Skandelon said: ↑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? ;)Click to expand...
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. -
quantumfaith said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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?" -
webdog said: ↑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.Click to expand...
-
Wait folks...don't actually hold the non-calvinists to their statements...or what they teach...or anything. It's not what they meant. When you discover this, then there'll be the rabbit trail given to get you off track.
When you provide proof per request? Well, then they'll want names, and will never look at the proof. Why not? Well, it proves you're correct, and that they are wrong. And I mean really, are they truly interested in the false teachings that come from within their own camp when proof is provided? Heavens sakes no. One would never actually go cut and paste actual quotes provided and find they are true.The focus is on scouring "Calvinist" replies. And it goes on and on and on.
And we have this:
"I believe the atonement applies to all men." "Then you're a universalist!" "No I'm not!" (Uh, yes actually you are)
-or-
"We Arminians believe God does the enabling, yeah yeah, THAT'S what we believe!" -to- "It is within mans ability." Uh, OK. :thumbs:
So we have a double whammy; They make a statement and deny their theological beliefs when you look at their teachings -or- They make a theological statement that tell you their beliefs, then they go back and deny what they said after you point out the errant theological position in it. Then? Well, no owning up to it, contrary to the thread stating Calvinists don't own up, but Arminians do. :laugh:
Same song different dance.
Then the pejoratives, that's a free side order.
None of these have actually addressed the OP, but, at the same time they've proven it to be true. This was inevitable.
Thanks. -
glfredrick said: ↑This is a classic example of an attack...Click to expand...
-
It matters not what is said, it matters from whence it came. :thumbsup:
-
preacher4truth said: ↑Wait folks...don't actually hold the non-calvinists to their statements...or what they teach...or anything. It's not what they meant. When you discover this, then there'll be the rabbit trail given to get you off track.
When you provide proof per request? Well, then they'll want names, and will never look at the proof. Why not? Well, it proves you're correct, and that they are wrong. And I mean really, are they truly interested in the false teachings that come from within their own camp when proof is provided? Heavens sakes no. The focus is on scouring "Calvinist" replies. One would never actually go cut and paste actual quotes and find them. And it goes on and on and on.
And we have this:
"I believe the atonement applies to all men." "Then you're a universalist!" "No I'm not!" (Uh, yes actually you are)
-or-
"We Arminians believe God does the enabling, yeah yeah, THAT'S what we believe!" -to- "It is within mans ability." Uh, OK. :thumbs:
So we have a double whammy; They make a statement and deny their theological beliefs when you look at their teachings -or- They make a theological statement that tell you their beliefs, then they go back and deny what they said after you point out the errant theological position in it. Then? Well, no owning up to it, contrary to the thread stating Calvinists don't own up, but Arminians do. :laugh:
Same song different dance.
Then the pejoratives, that's a free side order.
None of these have actually addressed the OP, but, at the same time they've proven it to be true. This was inevitable.
Thanks.Click to expand...
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. -
webdog said: ↑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.Click to expand...Skandelon said: ↑: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:Click to expand...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1793132#post1793132
And webdog receives a thumbs up from you for that. -
kyredneck said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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. -
kyredneck said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
Luke2427 said: ↑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.Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say here, it's spot on. -
glfredrick said: ↑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?"Click to expand...
Page 5 of 10