Featured Historic VS Contemporary Arminianism

HeirofSalvation

[/QUOTE]


Looks like he thinks he can here:

Then he says this:
Arminius, after serving as minister for some time, was called to the University of Amsterdam to teach as a professor of theology on the condition that he would adhere to the Belgic Confession (a Reformed confession that upheld biblical ideas surrounding salvation, God, His decrees, the nature of Christ, and other important topics). Arminius pledged loyalty to the Confession when entering the professorship. However, though Arminius gave allegiance to the confession, he really did not believe it. He was a scandalous, double-minded, shadowy and insincere individual.


Again he makes a clear statement right here about todays arminians-

Hos....are you telling me ,you have not seen these very things posted right here on the BB????

I have seen all these things posted here. You might not agree with MM...but do not say he is not putting it clearly.You cannot expect he is going to put the contents of 3 volumes into what he speaks of as a brief article.

After appealing to the 1644 wcf to briefly outline truth. he says this;

Again...you do not like what he offers, but it is so if followed through.

Here is more of what you say he does not know;

 

Regarding this that was posted...

What complete, comical, disasterous nonsense. May Almighty God grant true enlightement to these dear ones.

 

OK ICON you begged for it: Now, for three seconds...stop "correcting" people and learn something you did not know: You wanna hear where your boy McMahon is wrong? Here goes:

That is false...Arminians simply do not believe that...it is a lie. NO Arminian has affirmed this statement. McMahon is wrong, and if you believe it, so are you.

.
This is a scandalous accusation of brethren ICON....your boy McMahon will NOT demonstrate this as true...he will merely assert this devilish accusation without warrant. You believe his false accusation with no proof: NONE.
He falsely accusses a brother, and you chuckle in glee as a man is falsely destroyed, with ZERO proof...this makes me sick. McMahon provides NO evidence for such horrendous accusation, and yet you warm yourself to it...

VOMITOUS!!! I SPIT on this GARBAGE!

Here's a gem from you:

NO...of course not...but I'm NOT so stupid as to call all such things "Arminianism"......such things have possibly been stated by people who DENY the label "Arminian"....DUH!!! Apparently...both you and McMahon are equally incapable of distinguishing between those terms..That's why I said his article was "stupid"...and I continue to, but let's continue with McMahon's falsehood shall we?

This, again, is simply false....McMahon has NO idea what he is talking about...Arminius did NOT believe this, nor do educated confessional Arminians now. This is an example of why I do not take McMahon seriously...similarly, I do not take you seriously...if you actually think this drivel is true. It isn't. It's stupid. You believe ignorance and stupidity if you believe this....you are in no position to "correct" anyone....Neither is your boy McMahon. But here is more stupidity from him:

His first sentence is patently false...Arminius taught ABSOLUTELY no such thing...nor do confessional Arminians believe such..Arminius could NOT be MORE clear about his affirmation that sinful man was incapable of "good" without the supernatural intervention of God's grace...If you think so, then you are as full of falsehoods as McMahon is....then again...neither did Pelagius himself teach such things...All men "sin" of their own wicked will....man may ONLY do anything "good" by God's grace. It may be "Prevenient" or whatever else, but no man does good of his own accord, neither Arminius believed it, nor actually Pelagius. The only arguable difference is perhaps Arminian views about the fall. Arminius believed it was absolutely total...Pelagius...not perhaps as much (he didn't care much about it honestly...he was just sick of people making excuses for sinning if you understood the man). You don't of course, because neither YOU nor McMahon have actually read a word FROM him.....I HAVE. He was a man simply sick of people making excuses for sinning...and the whole idea that they were incurably pre-disposed to it (that's Calvinism) made for a convenient excuse which Augustine was happy to accomodate...but Pelagius (who lived impeccably) HATED that excuse...perhaps he erred some about the totality of the fall, but Augustine wanted excuses for sin, and Pelagius HATED them....That's the REAL difference between the two men: Augustine preached a "feel-good" gospel that it wasn't "your will" when you sinned (and the people took note of it)...Pelagius (whose life was impeccable) gave people NO SUCH EXCUSES!

More rank ignorance and stupidity by McMahon, and I must assume, you, Arminians don't believe that God "hopes" men will come to him...he "KNOWS" men will. He is OMNISCIENT in Arminianism remember? Or did you not ever even know.... You probably didn't, obviously, your boy McMahon didn't either...or he is intentionally lying...I am not sure which in his case.

So.........I called the article "stupid"...and it is not "childish" to do so ICON...now... I await your "correction" oh, wise one.
Do explain to us Clearly...how much you and Mcmahon understand about what Arminians believe...Please "correct" us...because, as far as I know, neither you nor he know a whit about Arminianism...he may be merely stupid, or he may be a liar....YOU.......I do not call a liar.

 

Yes...this article is comically stupid...comically. I doubt any educated Calvinist would take it seriously, Icon would....but, ya know, so it goes

 

Gosh Iconoclast, this might be a new low for you.

Whew.

 

Do many here know that classical Arminianism actually would hold to us being sinners spiritual dead in ourselves, that unless God chose to grant to any of us his grace and enabling us to chose, none of us would be even able to get saved?

 

Would you agree that calvinism has death of Jesus a definite payment/atonement for sinners, while Arminianism would have it as provoding a way to save thsoe who chose to accept it, so not Substitution view, more a moral influence one?

 

Incorrect. Not a "way"; just as calvinists believe, it is substitutionary. To say otherwise is to deny scripture: "all our righteousness are as filthy rags"

 

Yesua1, you asked me....

Salvation is completly of God. He owes us NOTHING,as He is 100% morally perfect, and we are 100% depraved.

But in His great love he offers salvation to mankind. Every human being who has ever lived has oportunity, as all recieve Light that can be heeded or rejected. Faith, and faith alone is the only condition. And of course, it goes without saying that placing ones faith in Christ is a NON-WORK.

God bless

 

EWF..

You didnt adress your post to anyone.

Are you replying to my post or someome elses?

 

And you just mischaracterized all those who do not hold to Calvinist determinism.

 

No he did not, for its bottom line either the will of God being exercised saves us, or its our own will!

 

I don't claim to be a "spokesman" for arminianism; and I certainly don't ascribe to the modern form of arminianism/pelagianism promoted by the Methodists and such. If anything, and I've posted this before, the following conversation between a calvinist and an arminian characterizes my arminian viewpoint:

 

I'll respond to you and hope yeshua reads it.

I don't know of any Christian or group of Christians who believe that we are saved by our will.