Search results

And that is part of the problem. If I thought Arminianism was what you portrayed it to be I'd be a Calvinist too. I challenge you, I dare you, to actually confront real scholarly non-Calvinistic views instead of these simpleton misrepresentations. When you can move beyond these shallow...

Could I? Really? :tongue3: Yet, the question Calvinist can't seem to consistently answer is why would God grant you Calvinists the grace to see and understand Christ so fully, while leaving the rest of us poor saps looking at him from a distance? I mean, we all know its nothing in you by...

You guys read my posts like you read the scriptures. ;) I said, "I think it might be interesting because then we could look at the actual context of their post to see what they mean versus what you apparently think they mean, because I can assure you that no scholarly Arminian worth his salt...

1. Romans 3 passage is speaking of man's condition under the law, prior to the "righteousness apart from the law being revealed." (vs. 21). 2. Proof that we don't seek God on our own, is not proof that we can't respond to a God actively seeking us. He seeks us by coming to earth, inspiring...

This is a round about way of saying, "I'm obviously closer to Jesus than you are because of my soteriological views." Yet, I find it difficult to believe Jesus would treat other well intentioned children of God in the manner you have. "We will know them by their fruits." And having been one...

Once again your statement is blatantly false, verifiably untrue, clearly in error and I'm pretty sure you know it. Find ONE poster who would ever say that fallen humanity are "pretty good fellers" or anything remotely close. Find ONE poster who would ever say that we seek God on our own...

First, its no mere "quip," it is an article written for the sole purpose of addressing a negative trend of Reformed believers toward what he thinks is a false understanding of God's love. (he even wrote a book about it) Second, he is not the ultimate weight, but I figured some of the...

Oh, and glfredrick, you said, And that was in response to the quote: "God ordained that I would eat a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch." Yet, Luke would have no qualms whatsoever saying that God not only ordained what you ate for lunch, but that God ordains the movement of every atom or...

Well, I liked it when you held him in check by saying, "Luke, respectfully, I don't agree with you here. In your zeal to present a sovereign God, I believe that you have overstepped the bounds of Scripture in a place or two, and no matter how we wish to argue a Reformed position logically, we...

Actually, I've argued until I'm blue in the face with Luke about the permissive will of God. I agree with what you have said, in that God has a decretive will and a permissive will. Evil would fall under his permissive will only, not his decretive will. Luke's response to this argument has...

Luke, actually if I recall the point to which fredrick is referring, regarding you disagreeing, is the same point I've taken up against you as well. And while there are times your choice of words is completely compatible with the mainstream (and what I presume glf supports) there are other...

Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly. You are accusing Moderators here of intentionally acting like Socialists by pushing to find common ground in our theological view points? Seriously??? I suppose you'd say MacArthur, who wrote the article addressing this tendency was also acting...

Actually I said no "eternal implications" in reference to the fact that if we are wrong the same number of elect would be saved and we would be acting in accordance with God's decreed will. That is an important distinction, because even Calvinist acknowledge that men are held to account for...

So on the one hand you argue that God does have a common love for all his creatures, but doesn't desire all of them to be saved? What about the points made by other Calvinistic scholars which do affirm this desire?

No. I wasn't "advocating" anything in that post. I was responding to your post about erring on one side or the other by pointing out the eternal implications IF Calvinism is wrong versus IF Arminianism is wrong. This has NOTHING to do with my point and it also happens to fall under the fallacy...

You neglected the aspect of God's desire for all to be saved...

I suppose the articles quoted from Piper and MacArthur were stawmen arguments too? Maybe you missed this part of the article: "I am troubled by the tendency of some - often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine - who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent...

P4T, post 88 was a reply to your post #85. I didn't say read "slowly" in a demeaning tone, as you implied. I asked you to read it more carefully because I've explained my point several times yet your reply reveals that you haven't clearly understood me. I meant to express frustration, not...

<sigh> P4T and Jesusfan, please re-read my posts carefully. You are not following. I'm supposing on the one hand what the eternal affect would be IF Arminianism is incorrect versus if Calvinism is incorrect. If Arminians is incorrect and Calvinism is true then my being an Arminian is NOT...

:laugh: I hadn't even noticed that. Is it immature that it made me laugh? Now when my wife asks what I'm doing when I'm posting here I have a verb form of the word. "Honey, I'll be there in a minute, I'm Skandaling." :laugh: