Search results

Please re-read what I quoted of Arminius' writings, in the post of mine you quoted. That was answered.

There doesn't need to be "safeguards" in arminianism. Classical arminianism preaches that the atonement is offered to all, but is only useful to believers. Thus, no "arminian universalism" exists.

You missed Arminius' point. His writings say that no one chooses God without Him first giving them the ability to do so (i.e., choosing them and giving them the grace that quickens their spirit). Since God chose first, your argument is really with resistable grace.

Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life." God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified...

It's clear you haven't actually read Arminius, Brian. I believe that's why we're having difficulty.

Put words in people's mouths much? Cause my sentence was finished. By "finishing" it for me, you merely proved the strawman argument that has been presented against you.

How could I ask God to do something that "my" theology does not say can happen? My theology says Jesus saves.

Yes, you did. When you stated "whatever that is," you implied a denial of arminians believing in grace preceeding salvation. The same thing that calvinists pray for: the salvation of a soul.

Tom Cassidy has done a better job of explaining this in the past. However, I'll use Arminius' words: “No man believes in Christ except he has been previously disposed and prepared, by preventing or preceding grace, to receive life eternal on that condition on which God wills to bestow it...

This misunderstanding is why you were never an arminian, nor profess the arminian position correctly.

That's not the arminian viewpoint. Maybe pelagian, or semi-pelagian.

So calvinists wouldn't pray for the salvation of uncle Billy or cousin Daisy?

Since true arminians say that salvation is all of God - both?

Not sure of your question. Are you asking if the pelagian position represents the natural state of the unregenerated mind, while the calvinist position stands in opposition (represents the state of a regenerated mind)?

To all, and to all, good night.

The question to you still stands: which men hate God's sovereignty in election? I would assume you mean all non-cal men.

Hillary was the better choice?! At best, she was an equal choice. But to say she was better, is to be as deluded by Satan as you think the Trump supporters are.

I have not provided a theory; I have presented observations. Your stance is that you are correct, and you want to change the mind of anyone who disagrees with you. That's been blatantly obvious since your first post on this board. Of course; just not on this subject. Where did you get...

As I've shown above, Arminius wrote that it is all of God. The atonement is most definitely for some, not all. Where the argument between cals and non-cals typically lies is with the thought of, was it for the elect, or are we elect because of the atonement?

What's not to understand? If you're not going to be intellectually honest enough to examine the discussion, and be prepared to admit that maybe there's something more than what you currently understand -- then you're not encouraging discussion.