Search results

Good job of explaining your positon. Where we disagree is that I do not believe an unregenerate person has any spiritual ability apart from a prevenient work of God as described in the third article of the Remonstrants. But we can agree to disagree on this. I do believe that God is the...

a. The ordo salutis has nothing to do with what I said regarding Ephesians 1:13. It is a red herring. b. You can claim what I say illogical, but then you are making an assertion without support. So what you said earlier is an instance of "pot calling kettle black" c. Nope, I do not believe in...

I have not MISREPRESENTED Calvinism and your views, so I would appreciate it if you would refrain from misrepresenting my views. One of three things just happened (or did not happen) a. You either did not read my posts. b. You did not read my posts with understanding c. You deliberately...

I agree, but I think that Arminians have a slightly different view of Total depravity from Calvinists. Wouldnt an Arminian say that even though God's grace PRECEDES faith, yet faith precedes regeneration. My understanding (I may be wrong) is a Calvinist holds regeneration before/ leads to...

AMEN. I completely agree with both of these statements. This shows the WIDE GULF between true Arminianism and the errors of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It really is untrue when people accuse Arminians of being Pelagians and semi Pelagians. And these two quotes demonstrate it.

I am not sure about the OSAS thing. I do believe that if we are truly elect, we will perservere. You did not mention that resistable vs irresistable grace. If you believe in resistable grace, that will make you a three point arminian, if you believe in irresistable grace, you are a two point...

First of all, I said "I do not accept all of TULIP". That is not making an unsupported statement. That is merely stating my position. I did not say TULIP was wrong or unbiblical, I said I am unconvinced. Secondly, I positively affirmed what I held to be true which is better than arguing...

Rather than argue against Calvinism, I will give a positive response of what I see in scriptures. a. There is a powerful, monergistic act of God that must occur before someone can exercise saving faith (John 6:44, Romans 10:20). I am not sure if this act of God should be defined as regeneration...

IN a sense, because we exist in time. God is Omnipresent, so I believe He exists outside of time and therefore "known unto God are all His works from the foundation of the world" (Acts 15:18) Thank you as well for your excellent imput. With all this said, I still cannot go along with all...

I am in general agreement with this post. Good post The only thinng I might not agree with is the term "mutually exclusive" premises. They only appear to be so from our temporal perspective. Would you agree?

Actually most arminans do not believe in eternal security. As to myself, I believe what the Bible says, which is "we are secure IN CHRIST. We are kept by the power of God through faith. I believe in prevenient grace but slightly differently from some Arminians. Some Arminians believe that...

I heartily agree with 1-3 of the first paragraph I heartily agree with paragraph 2, except God does not necessarily cause the tornado, but allows it. Tornados are the result of living in a fallen Kosmos. Whether or not I agree with pargaraph 3 is contingent on the sense in which you are using...

Well, it's been more by my initiation than theirs. I do think that the Cavinists I have spoken to have said that God permits evil, not causes it. So that means that He determined beforehand to allow (not cause it) it and then use it to fulfill His own purpose. That is the way I understand it...

Upon further reflection, I have detected one possible flaw in my argument in post 107; It does not account for sins of omission. For example, if I fail to tell my neighbor about Jesus. God does not coerce me by force to tell my neighbor about Jesus, but at the same time I don't think it can...

So are we in agreement on the question of what God's pre-ordaining all things means, then? (see post 107) PS- your answer to my initial question was very helpful. Thank you. I will admit that in my early days, I was not even willing to listen to Calvinism. I was a hard core, extreme...

In addition to my last reply to this, I think I understand your position better than you understand mine. You thought I was saying that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, and I never said that. I only repeated the PART of the Westminster confession that states "God has ordained whatsoever...

The way some people describe Arminianism makes me wonder how that could be. Do you think Arminius would say that God's power and benevolence is to a "limited degree" like the post earlier? I don't think he would have. BTW, do you have any objections to what I said in my last post. I think...

Now here is a question for Arminians. IF we define "pre-ordain" as "to decide something beforehand", and knowing that a. God is OMNISCIENT and knows both everything that will happen as well as what potentially could happen, b. He is also OMNIPOTENT, meaning He can RESTRAIN evil freely as...

This is a misrepresentation of the Arminian position. No Arminian would say God is benevolent to a limited degree and most would not say His power is limited (except for open theists, which is a departure from Classical Arminianism, and I would say a perversion of it. (IMHO) SO the former...

1. . Which comes first; A. Faith C. regeneration? 2. . Is our election based on: A. God's Decree to save all who believe and His Foreknowledge of those who do believe C. God's Decree to save is not based on anything whatsoever that we have done or will do. 3 Who did Jesus die for? A. all...