:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Lion, Rabbit and a Woman
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
That is libelous:
Question:
1.) Can someone who denies that salvation is by grace through faith be saved?
2.) If someone places their faith in anything other than the grace of God be saved?
3.) Has Skandelon EVER denied that he is anything other than a poor helpless sinner unable to do good or please the Father or save his soul except for God's grace FIRST being shown to him.
4.) Are you claiming that Skandelon is unsaved?
If you cannot demonstrate he is guilty of any of those then you have to explain precisely how he denies the doctrine of grace. Or you are merely parsing words and libelling him.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=g...phemism&page=4
Seriously stop it. Annsni never stated that Skan was unsaved. Annsni never stated that Skan denied the grace of God. Annsni never said that Skandelon denied that salvation is by grace through faith. So the only one guilty of libel would be you. Skandelon would be against the doctrines of grace. If you don't know what that is, you should just keep to yourself instead of posting that someone is being libel. That's a very harsh accusation that you have no business making.
obviously, yes. I think annsni just forgot the "s" at the end. But in the context of the discussion, yes.
ALL 3 of them are free to chose according to their natures, its just that is what limits their choices, as there would be some things would not even consider to eat!
Same way, sinners are indeed free to chose as they desire, its just that they are some decisions will not even consider due to their state, such as believing and trusting in Christ for salvation!
Same way, sinners are indeed free to chose as they desire, its just that they are some decisions will not even consider due to their state, such as believing and trusting in Christ for salvation!
quantumfaith
Active Member
Annsi, I REALLY DO understand you point, notwithstanding, this is exactly how many of us non-cals feel about many responses (not all) but many expressed here in BB land. They are every bit as "pointed" and such.
Skan is quite correct, this is a "debate and discussion" style board, particularly here in "theology land". If I don't "like" what I see, I can go to another thread to see if that is where I want to contribute and throw in my $.04 (due to inflations).
quantumfaith
Active Member
I see the "inverse" of what you see.
what do you mean by that though?
Back to the op... I have two golden retrievers, Zeke & Joy. When I place the leftover plates of food on the floor, they each eat according to their desires. Zeke will only eat meats, breads, & some condiments. Joy eats those things plus some fruits & vegetables. They have free choice because they have tasted those things & know what they like & don't like.
The rabbit would eat the lettuce, the lion would eat the meat, the rabbit, & possibly the woman, the woman would be too busy running & screaming to eat anything.
The rabbit would eat the lettuce, the lion would eat the meat, the rabbit, & possibly the woman, the woman would be too busy running & screaming to eat anything.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
HeirofSalvation, Thanks for the defense, but...
"Doctrines of Grace" is a term used by Reformers (Calvinists) to reference TULIP. I understood what she meant and didn't take it to mean that I denied God's grace. She might feel that I have because I reject her interpretation of the means of God's grace, but for her to argue that I deny Grace all together would be question begging at worse. This is the lowest form of debate. [snipped - inflammatory]
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
We all see "things" through our own particular "biased" lens. Where she sees "anti-calvinists", I equally as often see "anti-non-calvinists".
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It think this is kind of missing the point. I was meaning to point to the fact that the woman was the only omnivore, thus the only one with a real CHOICE. Its not about choosing among differing desires for the Lion and the rabbit because they are born unable to desire the other option on the table. This is the same for mankind in the Calvinistic worldview. They are born unable to choose to follow Christ even when invited by God to do so.
:thumbsup: lol
Yes, the other term for Calvinism. I don't like to use "Calvinism" because I don't follow Calvin. I believe the doctrines of grace is a better term.
I know what she meant, and I know Calvinist claim ownership of the term "Grace". The questions I asked were questions that were designed to make a point, I do not think that anyone has read the link I put up there. If you are to debate Calvinism, you (I think) cannot cede the high ground by allowing them to make "grace" and "Calvinism" synonymous. I was not "defending" you, you are perfectly capable of doing that yourself!! Perhaps a new thread would be the place for my objections. Notice what Ann says here:
I BET she feels its a better term! The more you let her define the Philisophy of Determinism she is pushing and call it the "Doctrine of Grace" you are on the losing end of the proposition. You do realize that in her mind, every time you debate against Calvinist theology it is "grace" you are attacking? I know she is not questioning salvation, I was trying to display what the Bible teaches grace is and demonstrate that to allow Calvinists to push determinism and call it "grace" is abusing the term. The link I posted (twice) should show what I am talking about. It didn't work when I tried it myself I will fix it with this repost here:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism&page=4
Ann, I am aware that you are not intentionally "libelling" I was trying to make these points above, I am trying to expose the poverty in my opinion of making "grace" and "Calvinism" synonymous. It was a Reductio ad absurdum so to speak, the above link does work. That being said, If I feel like harping more on it, I will start a new thread that no one will visit:tongue3:
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited..... thanks Heir. just be careful because you did say she was libel in the other post.
Last edited by a moderator:
JBH,
See my edit of my above post. It was a Reductio I was making. see my edit. And read the friggin link for crying out loud!!
\
See my edit of my above post. It was a Reductio I was making. see my edit. And read the friggin link for crying out loud!!
\
I KNOW what I said JBH, and I stand by the actual POINT I was trying to convey, I was NOT backpedalling then, I am not now.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, I've read it and it you echo my thoughts and voice.
I too have long resented the Calvinist attempt to monopolize on the meaning of and claiming to have "The" doctrine of grace; and as well I find the motives of using the phrase questionable and unjustified.- Status