Why Do Arminians Pray for the Salvation of the Lost?

Given the 5 points: TULIP (in Calvinism)
Which ones are different in Arminianism, if any?

 

One more item that I put as separate.

I will conduct a civil and pleasurable discourse.

But I will not discourse with one who wants to attempt to gain ground by disparage and demeaning.

Therefore, attend to the matter and leave off the grade school yard bully tactics.

Surly your parentage taught you better manners.

 

That's exactly what you did, I will again quote you in your own words explaining the standard to which you adhere"

This is you insisting on particular verbiage and the quotes are YOURS (not mine) meaning you were (an hour ago) insisting on particular verbiage.:

Two things in your post:
1.) you made use of the word "called" in reference to particular verbiage used, and
2.) you placed that verbiage about which you contend in quotes:

I will show the readers of this post again how "Agedman" did this very thing:

That was your standard.

Just so no one is confused, this is "Agedman" (whom I don't mind placing in quotes)
Suggesting an intractable standard by which things are judged, and I quote him:

That is "Agedman's" standard and I quote him word for word

 

It's only "pleasurable" if we don't take your word seriously though, since you object to my insistence on quoting your own words to you.

Translation:
You will not discourse with one who insists on quoting your own words back to you and insisting that you explain your own words...which I've quoted ad-nauseum to you.
You simply want everyone to bow down to you and accept every word of yours as gospel...
Not gonna do it.

Will do, here's the "matter"....your standard was specific verbiage used and whether it was quoted in the Bible. Here's you insisting on it:

..

I suppose taking you at your word is "school yard bully tactics" to you...(per your own words).
If that is so, I have no appreciation for your "school-yard" ethics inasmuch as they don't imply taking a man at his word....
Apparently, in your "school-yard" no one can take a man at his word since you insisted on a standard you now deny...
And in case anyone forgets that standard it was this:

..

My parentage taught me to take a man at his word....
Apparently, your parentage taught you no such thing.

How sad, and morally impoverished, and pathetic your up-bringing was...

I feel for you.

 

Are you deliberately quoting in part in attempt to be biased in the presentation? Such would be considered deceitful in a classroom.

Again, from the quote from the post in question:

"There is NOT as single instance or Scripture for the support of such grace."​

Perhaps you missed such the first two times I posted, so this is the third.

There is no Scripture called prevenient / preceding grace.
There is no example demonstrating support for prevenient / preceding grace.

It is rather remarkable that you would point to an opening sentence and not refer to the rest of the structure of the post.

You quoted only a part of the post. A part that seems to suit your undetermined goal.

That which was an opening remark which was clarified and restated at the end of that same post.

Perhaps, you would like to demonstrate the standard being met, as I presented was certainly done for irresistible grace, in this matter of your own support for prevenient / preceding grace.

Show either by Scripture statement or Scripture example that such grace is valid.

For, even the Wesleys' knew that it was without support of either when they concocted the scheme.

Should you be able to do so, then perhaps I would be amendable to such a scheme.

However, it is evident by your response to my posts that you probably would not be so amendable toward acceptance of irresistible grace, though I have shown you by Scripture example that such is indeed true.

 

We are done.

You have no honor, and you are deceitful in presenting.

 

You keep clinging to this false idea of Armininism. I believe three people have directly refuted your definitions and yet you keep plowing on with your mistaken notions.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

NO. We are only saved by God's grace and mercy. According to Arminius, our free will exists in resisting salvation.

 

Okay, that was funny, and you have my deepest sympathies. I fell into the same trap with my wife regarding Downton Abbey.

 

In classical arminianism, the primary difference would be irresistable grace. There is discussion about several of the others; Arminius died before coming down off the fence one way or the other regarding perseverance of the saints.

Wesleyan (modern) arminianism tends to lean towards believers can lose their salvation. I disagree.

 

That is absolutely opposite of what Arminius wrote, as I have presented more than once.

 

Romans 8

24For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.


Leave the hoping to Christians.


1 corinthians 13

13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

What do you know about that?