Calvinism - TULIP - "L"imited Atonement

Yes, logic built upon a false premise constructed from your misunderstanding most definately leads one to an absurd conclusion.

You need to study more and actaully listen to what others are telling you and not tell others what they hold. It will benifit your understanding greatly.

 

Actually I was 'citing' him but in my haste to type I left off his name, so technically it was not a 'cite' but the intent was to 'cite' him.

Very true. I assumed this was one of JD's thread I hadn't posted in much but your correction is true and noted. Thank you.

 

Keep telling yourself that but it wont change to a truth.

So I guess this concludes any debating with you that isn't condesending by nature nor a 'let me tell you what you beleive' childishness. I must say you have a long way to go in understanding the non-cal view and it would benifit you to read it from non-cals so you actaully grasp their understanding of certain issues. I might not agree with Calvinism due to it's some of it's biblical inconsistancies but I at least have respect towards it and those who do as well.

It was fun - for a while.

 

Allan, you either are a monergist, or a synergist. Which is it? I think you belong to the latter group unless you change your theology.You may want to distance yourself from the Synergistic Camp, but you're still among that number. If I am wrong, then please explain your change of heart.You believe people have to make a choice based on their own volition, right?So, it's up to them, they turn the key. They hold the power of their own regeneration.You don't want God deciding for you because that smacks too much of Him 'forcing' you into His Kingdom.

Okay, I'm waiting for"As a matter of fact..." from you.

 

It is a conclusion based upon a false premise and is constructed through a misunderstanding of that position.

First, your conclusion made was in relation to 'logical end' of unlimited atonement being that all men would be saved. False. Your taking your definition and applying to anothers view thus you have a false premise from the beginning. Your misunderstanding constructs a false view to which you accuse others of believing when in fact it is a view of your own making.

Secondly "all men have the 'capability' to choose".

And thirdly,here is your understanding of synergism as related below from another thread:

Based upon the above I am not a synergist.

 

As a matter of fact..

See my previous post.

 

Scripture for us needing to be EITHER a monergist or synergist? I'm both to an extent. That is what Scripture teaches...so I'll stick with that.

 

For debate purposes, it would help to get your definitioins of monergism and synergism correct before stating there is no middle ground.

 

First off, I am consistant just not to a Calvinistic doctrine nor to a Calvinsts defintion of what I believe.

Point of fact: The term synergist or synergism was brought into being by those in Calvinism to try to describe anothers views.

John Hendryx states it it this way (from wiki):

A couple of notes here.
1. His statement actually relates more to the Pelagain view if not to the semi-Pel view as well, of which the majority of Non-Cals do not share. Thus it is apparent it does not apply to the non-Cal position.

2. The non-Cals do not hold that man has any power 'to seek' for regeneration under the influence of 'ordinary motives'. Man can only come to God by God direct intervention and revelation thus he can not seek regeneration of nor by himself. If 'ordinary' is defined by God moving upon him and revealing truth - then we may need to look at this defintion again.

3. I purposely skipped the first part of the sentence to be dealt with here because it is only partially true but partially twisted unlike the other two points.
...3a. Man in the fall 'did loose' all desire toward holiness and in darkness never sought it not knowing what it was or that he needed it. However by moving of God via His Spirit to convict and reveal truth man can see and know that which was afore unknown to him. Not that man seeks after it like knowledge or treasure but that man knows truth because of God.

His understanding of what constitutes synergism is applicable only to the Pel and semi-Pel groups. Non-Cals are niether soterologically.

Another definition from wiki is put this way in more general terms:

This definition however places the Calvinist into the synergist position since no man is saved by God unless that man believes. God does not save man independant of man or without mans input. Man must accept/believe in order to be saved. Regardless of the fact that in the Calvinistic understanding God regenerates him first, gives him faith 'to believe with', and even gives him a new nature - God still 'will not' save him until he believes. Calvinist requires the same cooperation that the non-cals state.

However that fact of the matter is that God alone saves man, God alone draws man, God alone regenerates man, and God alone is the means of mans faith unto salvation.

Thus the Non-Cal also states:
"For my salvation, I boast in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone for the glory of God alone through truth revealed in Scripture alone."

 

You clearly don't understand the Doctrinal position of the non-Calvinist.

I know my doctrinal position and have soundly stood it by trying to show you your misunderstandings and false presumptions.

I will not however pretend I am something I am not nor will I acquiesce to being placed into a position that defines Pelagain and Semi-Pelagian views.