Arminian Grace

Oh, I hadn't responded yet because I figured you had read the link where you posted the poem from. They did an ample job critiquing that ridiculous caricature of a song.

Here is what the link in the original OP goes on to say for those who didn't see it, its got footnotes and everything. What else needs to be said?

 

Those are fair questions. The gospel is simple, a child can understand, but perhaps some do have difficulty. I believe God will show grace to these persons if they have a desire to understand. An example is the apostles themselves, often they did not understand Jesus's parables any better than the scribes and Pharisees. The difference is they had a desire to understand and asked Jesus to explain them. This is how grace works, if you respond to it, more will be given, but to those who are indifferent, even that which was given shall be taken away.

This is what the parable of the talents shows. If you will receive what Jesus gives you and put it to use, more will be given. If you do not, your coin (talent) shall be taken away.

As for the handicapped, I know of mentally retarded people who are believers and understand the gospel well. The severely retarded would not be accountable.

For those that ignore the gospel, that is altogether different, they do so at their own peril.

 

Really and what makes you think that?

My snake doesn't have a name and he lives happily enough. He has a title that describes his biological standing as a creature, but he doesn't have a name. And he lives quite happily in my downstairs hall, all without a name. Apparently, naming a snake takes something away from its prestige as an unusual pet. (the boy children came up with that one)

So if you'd like a title you are welcome to call what I believe, "Cindi's Beliefs". Now they have a title. Hate that its not descriptive enough to illustrate each individual theological point I hold to, but that's the breaks. Just as the word snake only gives you a bare description of the creature that lives in my hall, you'll have to deal with the idea that "Cindi's Beliefs" only describe those points which I myself believe. I don't believe that anyone else must hold to "Cindi's Beliefs" but they work for me and you'll get used to the frustration.

Now, answer the questions: Why do you believe that people must ascribe to a historic theological viewpoint which is described by using the man's name who came up with them in the first place? Is it not enough to simply believe what the Bible says? Are you attempting to be my "high priest" by telling me what I must or must not believe and how I should title those beliefs?

I gotta go to church!

 

In order to define it, provide some characteristics & definition......so it doesnt continue to mutate!

 

Non-Cals believe in the Doctrine of Grace, the Doctrine of Mercy and the Doctrine of Salvation. You can pick which title or combine all three into one title.

 

Huh.....Those are my beliefs & I'm considered Calvinistic? What am I missing?:smilewinkgrin:

 

I only saw his post because you quoted it, but the reason I didn't respond is...

This message is hidden because Luke2427 is on your ignore list.

 

Then she falls into great company as there was not no 'names' for one theology for nearly 1500's in church history. It is a 'new' vise, a new fad, a new band wagon to jump on.

You go Girl!!
Hold fast to what has been and still true. Some like names, others understand that names give no real worth to theology except to aid in knowing what another 'potentially' holds to and nothing more.

 

I don't have a title for what I believe? I gave you one: "Cindi's Beliefs". That covers everything I believe about scripture.

But here's another question for the list I've already asked:

Which scripture passage teaches that I MUST have a title for all the doctrines/beliefs I hold to or says I must hold to a systematic theology?

Thank you Allan, I plan to!

 

Couldn't be that responding to such a stupid post is a complete waste of time?

 

Oh such true and insightful words. Thanks for the post.

 

Your lack of decorum and manners never cease to amaze me.

 

Well, give Luke some credit, the link he provided in the OP completely debunked the very song he quoted. I like this part the best:

"The rest of the re-worked masterpiece is just rubbish. It is no more true of Arminianism than it is of Calvinism. But once again we have yet another example of a Calvinist's caricature of Arminianism, exhibiting his confusion of Arminianism with Pelagianism because he is either too ignorant (in the classical sense of the word) or too lazy to investigate the matter any further."

 

:thumbs::thumbs::smilewinkgrin: