A Question for Arminians (or no-name theology believers)

[Aaron]

What an asinine conclusion to what was stated. Next...

"Conclusion" your momma's corset cover!

"faith in Christ appeases God's wrath against sinners"

This is about as faithless, antibiblical, antichrist statement one can make, and you stand in judgment of the ME'ers?

 

[glfredrick]

E-4 Jesus made provisional atonement for all the sins of all men.

The three possible choices for the ACTIONS of the atonement toward sinners (not the means, etc.) are contained in E-1, E-2, and E-3.

You are attempting to draw in the means.

Are all sins and all people atoned?

Are all sins and some people atoned?

Are some sins and some people atoned?

Those are the only possible choices.

I would suggest by your response above that you are choosing the all sins all people category. That means E-3. But now, you have a problem with universal salvation, which you also disavow. Perhaps you wish to chose E-2, that the atonement was for all people, but only some sins were forgiven.

 

[glfredrick]

If I had to give an analogy it would be like this;

Suppose I PM'd to everyone here at BB and said I had already bought you a ticket for next year's Super Bowl. And in fact I did go out and purchase a ticket for every member here. Now I tell everyone here that if you will simply send me a self addressed envelope I will mail you this free ticket.

Well, those who believed me will send me a self addressed envelope and will receive a free ticket to the Super Bowl.

Those who do not believe me will not send me a self addressed envelope and will not receive a free ticket to next year's Super Bowl even though a ticket was purchased for them.

And this is how salvation works, Jesus has made the full payment for all our sins, but we must believe him and trust him to receive it.

Nice allusion. I'll PM you my mailing address... When can I expect my tickets? :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

Webdoggie---come on now—not all of the reformed flavor lack a sense of humor—take me for example---every time I read your posts about libertarian free will—I sit back & laugh & laugh--& go that webdog—he’s gotta be joken when he writes this stuff—b/c surely no one with any real biblical sense would say mankind is completely free to choose without out any outside forces restraining personal decisions.

You must be reading someone else, because I do not believe in LFW as defined.

But then again—if one has the ability to believe that bene elohim refers to Sethities—maybe they do have the ability to support something as amusing as lfw!-:laugh: Now back to the thread at hand-:smilewinkgrin:

Now there's real science fiction...cross breeding theolodarwinism

 

[webdog]

"faith in Christ appeases God's wrath against sinners"

This is about as faithless, antibiblical, antichrist statement one can make, and you stand in judgment of the ME'ers?

On cue, you deny the basic fundamentals of the faith. Must be the hyper side bleeding through.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

You must be reading someone else, because I do not believe in LFW as defined.
Now there's real science fiction...cross breeding theolodarwinism

For being a free willer—you sure are a likeable guy—u silly Sethiter!

 

[MB]

Of course they do not disagree with Calvinism, but that is not the subject of this discussion. But to answer you in one simple statement, all who believe are the elect of God. Can't be any other way. The "whosoever" of Scripture is the same as the elect.

Show me just once your proof of the need to be elect before Salvation?.

The whosoever's are just as the word implies. If it were only the elect it wouldn't have said whosoever. To make that kind of statement shows your inability to make scripture support your doctrine of Calvinism. Changing the Word's of God is very serious. It like calling good evil and Evil good.

There is NO text of Scripture that the Calvinist does not hold as true. This common stereotype that Calvinists HAVE TO set aside some verse of Scripture in order to hold their theology is pure fallacy and pure drivel.

You are just trying to make the word "whosoever", say "only the elect" This really is Pure Drivel. You don't believe what the Word here says. So you make it say something else entirely. That is not agreeing with God's word that is changing it to try and make it support your non-supported Calvinism.

Time to get over it and move forward. As long as you continue to erect strawman arguments, you'll never figure out some of the things that you are constantly working on. At least deal with the real substance of Calvinism, as I am with Arminianism and other no-named theologies of free will.

Dealing with false doctrine is easy. I just toss it in the can with all the other garbage.

I'll pose a similar question to you that I posed to webdog... Have you ever actually read theology and grasp what the theologians are doing in formulating their doctrines? THEY WORK WITH THE WORD OF GOD...

I congradulate you on this statement for mainly admitting these men formed there own doctrines. LOL. The only truth I hold to be true is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. While Calvinist on the other hand have formed there own doctrines. There is a huge difference between following Christ and following men. This following the ideas of men is what Got the Catholic Church where it is today. The Pope took it to another level and started to claim to be representing Christ and claimed every word he said is the word's of God contradicting scripture. Calvinist like you do the same with the word whosoever. You contradict it's true meaning an insert the one you want.
MB

 

[Van]

Hi Rippon, lets consider your rejection that Christ died for all people. You say that it could not be "all" as in everyone who ever lived, because of those who died in unbelief and did not obtain "approval" through faith. So using your definition of "all" scripture is wrong. But rather than accept that view, I will cling to scripture and say your definition of "all" is incorrect. Now if we look at what "all" really means, it means "all" of whatever the author has in view. For example, in the game of marbles, we play for all the marbles, non are exempted. But are we playing for the marbles that will be manufactured next year, or the marbles in another city? Nope. So when scripture says Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, it refers to all the people who could be ransomed, including the OT saints, the people still living then, and all future people.

As for your second point, that spiritually dead people who have been made sinners and therefore unable to save themselves with works of righteousness, you are completely correct. However, you missed the point completely. I said those whose faith (as depraved and wretched at it may be, for sure a filthy rag) God credits as righteousness, will be saved.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

There is a huge difference between following Christ and following men. This following the ideas of men is what Got the Catholic Church where it is today. The Pope took it to another level and started to claim to be representing Christ and claimed every word he said is the word's of God contradicting scripture.

MB

I don't believe that a Catholic well formed in his/her faith would concur with you, and would probably state that the contradicition is only in your interpretation of the Word. Further, I'd like to know where the Pope states that "... every word he [the Pope] said is the word's of God." Can you show me, cause I'd sure like to know.

WM

 

[Aaron]

On cue, you deny the basic fundamentals of the faith.

Where is it written, "by faith, you have appeased God's wrath toward you?"

 

[Winman]

Ah,the power of unregenerate totally depraved people having the wherewithal and personal strength to make such a momentous choice of their own free dead-in-sin will!

This is where Calvinism goes right off the tracks. The scriptures show that unregenerate men are able to do many things that Calvinists deny.

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

These scribes and Pharisee were unregenerate, we know this because they were trying to tempt Jesus that they might accuse him of sin (vs. 6). But we see in vs. 5 they could understand God's law. And in verse 9 we see that when they heard Jesus's words (God's word) that they were convicted by their own conscience. So, an unregenerate man can understand God's law and sin, they still retain a conscience, and they can be convicted by God's word.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

This young man was unregenerate, but he sought out Jesus and had an interest in being saved. He did not hate God, but was very respectful to Jesus. He knew and understood much of God's word, and even kept God's commandments to a great degree as confirmed by Jesus himself in vs. 21.

We also note in vs. 21 that Jesus loved him, so God loves unregenerate sinners.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain was unregenerate, yet God said he was able to give an acceptable sacrifice and would be accepted if he did so. We also see that God said Cain could rule over sin.

So, Total Depravity as Calvinism holds it is completely false and refuted by much scripture. Yes, all men are depraved and sinners, but even depraved sinners can seek God, understand some scripture, do not necessarily hate God, can do works that are acceptable to God, have a conscience, and can be convicted by hearing God's word.

So, this is where you err, listening to the false unscriptural doctrines of men and not to what the scriptures clearly show. And I could show you much more, the scriptures clearly show that unregenerate men can make a choice to either obey or disobey God.

 

[glfredrick]

Winman, did it ever strike you that all the verses you posted above end up with the person at the center of the conversation walking away from God unsaved? One might think that if salvation was purely up to human devices as you so often suggest, that those who heard from God directly would have "believed" enough to have been saved.

But, in any case, that is not the OP for this thread.

How do you decide?

E-1, E-2, or E-3?

That is the topic, and diversionary tactics will not eliminate the need to choose. Of course, you are free to abandon this thread also, but if you are going to participate, you should at least, well, participate.

 

[webdog]

Where is it written, "by faith, you have appeased God's wrath toward you?"

Strawman. You hear what you want to hear and not what is said. It is by faith God's wrath is appeased against sinners. It's called the Gospel.

 

[glfredrick]

Show me just once your proof of the need to be elect before Salvation?.

Really? Well, guess I should consider the source...

What of this:

2 Pet 1:10-22 (NKJV) Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The whosoever's are just as the word implies. If it were only the elect it wouldn't have said whosoever. To make that kind of statement shows your inability to make scripture support your doctrine of Calvinism. Changing the Word's of God is very serious. It like calling good evil and Evil good.

How do you know? I have read the entire Scripture of God multiple times. I find God's election in it from cover to cover. Virtually every person used by God was "elected" by God for God's purpose by God's good favor, often in opposition to the tendencies and cultural mores of men.

QUOTE=MB;1662201] You are just trying to make the word "whosoever", say "only the elect" This really is Pure Drivel. You don't believe what the Word here says. So you make it say something else entirely. That is not agreeing with God's word that is changing it to try and make it support your non-supported Calvinism.[/QUOTE]

So, would you support universalism instead? It is patently evident that all are not saved. That means "whosoever" has limits somewhere. Suggesting, as Calvinists do, that the "whosoever" are the ones God is drawing to Himself does not weaken either the passages that say that, nor God, who is the sole author and finisher of salvation.

Dealing with false doctrine is easy. I just toss it in the can with all the other garbage.

Don't need the reminder...

I congradulate you on this statement for mainly admitting these men formed there own doctrines. LOL. The only truth I hold to be true is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. While Calvinist on the other hand have formed there own doctrines. There is a huge difference between following Christ and following men. This following the ideas of men is what Got the Catholic Church where it is today. The Pope took it to another level and started to claim to be representing Christ and claimed every word he said is the word's of God contradicting scripture. Calvinist like you do the same with the word whosoever. You contradict it's true meaning an insert the one you want.
MB

MB, whether or not you care to admit it, ALL doctrinal statements, including your own, are based in a doctrinal framework of interpretation. You cannot be the only one on the entire earth that comes at the Scriptures perfectly neutral in your interpretation -- completely aside from any theology -- that is a patent misunderstanding of theology for the first, and akin to lying to yourself for the second.

But, this entire thread is not devoted to arguing with you about the merits you bring. It is to debate the PROPOSITION I included above.

Where do you stand? E-1, E-2, or E-3. Anything else is a diversion, for we've argued the other stuff to death in other threads.

I'm asking for the APPLICATION of the atonement here -- period.

 

[Winman]

Winman, did it ever strike you that all the verses you posted above end up with the person at the center of the conversation walking away from God unsaved?

So what? The scriptures show that they did not have to go away unsaved. And they absolutely refute Total Depravity as Calvinism understands it.

One might think that if salvation was purely up to human devices as you so often suggest, that those who heard from God directly would have "believed" enough to have been saved.

No one is saying a man gets saved of himself. The unregenerate men in John 8 were convicted by Jesus's words. The young ruler had obviously heard of Jesus and sought him out, and Cain had the direct words of God that he could do well and be accepted.

But, in any case, that is not the OP for this thread.

How do you decide?

E-1, E-2, or E-3?

That is the topic, and diversionary tactics will not eliminate the need to choose. Of course, you are free to abandon this thread also, but if you are going to participate, you should at least, well, participate.

I don't like E1, E2, or E3, they do not represent my view. I gave an analogy of how I believe, Jesus has fully paid for all the sins of all men everywhere, but only those who trust Jesus receive this forgiveness.

You seem to think you have exhausted all possible explanations. You haven't.

 

[glfredrick]

So what? The scriptures show that they did not have to go away unsaved. And they absolutely refute Total Depravity as Calvinism understands it.



No one is saying a man gets saved of himself. The unregenerate men in John 8 were convicted by Jesus's words. The young ruler had obviously heard of Jesus and sought him out, and Cain had the direct words of God that he could do well and be accepted.



I don't like E1, E2, or E3, they do not represent my view. I gave an analogy of how I believe, Jesus has fully paid for all the sins of all men everywhere, but only those who trust Jesus receive this forgiveness.

You seem to think you have exhausted all possible explanations. You haven't.

I'm still waiting for my tickets to arrive in the mail... Thanks for the very kind offer!

But, THERE IS NTHER POSITION TO CONSIDER for the application of the atonement.

All sin, all people -- all people, some sin -- or some people, some sin. No other position possible!

 

[Winman]

I'm still waiting for my tickets to arrive in the mail... Thanks for the very kind offer!

But, THERE IS NTHER POSITION TO CONSIDER for the application of the atonement.

All sin, all people -- all people, some sin -- or some people, some sin. No other position possible!

But you are wrong, and I gave an analogy that shows that. I could in real life buy everyone here a Super Bowl ticket. I paid the full price. Then I could simply say that anyone here who wants one to simply let me know and I will send it to you. If a person believes my promise, they will contact me and I would send them the ticket. If they don't believe me, they will not contact me they don't get the ticket even though it was purchased for them. This is an option you did not consider in the OP, the answer that is the true answer. Perhaps this option never occured to you? Or did you avoid this option?

Jesus said "come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" in Matt 11:28. That is a promise of salvation to anyone who comes to him in their heart. If you believe Jesus's promise you will come to him in your heart and be saved. If you do not believe you will not come to him in your heart and you will not be saved. The price has been paid, the free gift is available to all, but you must believe and come unto him to receive it.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

No Calvinist would argue that the first "all men" in this verse does not mean all men everywhere. And therefore the second "all men" in this verse must also mean all men everywhere. Now, I do not believe in universalism, so it is obvious this verse is not speaking of imputation. No, for the judgment to come upon all men, all men must sin (which they do), and for the free gift to come upon all men they must believe (which they don't). Nevertheless, the free gift is paid for and available for all men everywhere. But even a free gift must be accepted. You might truly believe my offer to give you a Super Bowl ticket, but if you neglect to contact me, you will not receive it. Or, if I send it to you, and you do not use it, it will not profit you.

 

[Aaron]

Strawman. You hear what you want to hear and not what is said. It is by faith God's wrath is appeased against sinners. It's called the Gospel.

Again. Where is it written?

 

[MB]

Really? Well, guess I should consider the source...

What of this:

2 Pet 1:10-22 (NKJV) Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Election comes after Salvation other wise you'd never be able to make it sure. How can you make your election sure if you had nothing to do with it. Really I'd like to know.

How do you know? I have read the entire Scripture of God multiple times. I find God's election in it from cover to cover. Virtually every person used by God was "elected" by God for God's purpose by God's good favor, often in opposition to the tendencies and cultural mores of men.

Where did you find yours?. Oh let me see I think it happened before you existed isn't that right. LOL
QUOTE=MB;1662201] You are just trying to make the word "whosoever", say "only the elect" This really is Pure Drivel. You don't believe what the Word here says. So you make it say something else entirely. That is not agreeing with God's word that is changing it to try and make it support your non-supported Calvinism.
[/QUOTE]

So, would you support universalism instead? It is patently evident that all are not saved. That means "whosoever" has limits somewhere.

No it doesn't. It's whosoever calls on the name of the LORD. Can't you even read it with out your presupposed ideas.

Suggesting, as Calvinists do, that the "whosoever" are the ones God is drawing to Himself does not weaken either the passages that say that, nor God, who is the sole author and finisher of salvation.

Nope not a universalist but just a reminder, Calvinist by the thousands are headed right back to where they came from, the Roman Catholic Church. and they are universalist.

Don't need the reminder...

Sure you do

MB, whether or not you care to admit it, ALL doctrinal statements, including your own, are based in a doctrinal framework of interpretation. You cannot be the only one on the entire earth that comes at the Scriptures perfectly neutral in your interpretation -- completely aside from any theology -- that is a patent misunderstanding of theology for the first, and akin to lying to yourself for the second.

I can't make any claims to perfection as you do about my beliefs. I can only say that I'm entirely God dependant. I don't try to interpret what God is saying. I just read it out loud and listen to my self with out any emblishments. I question everyone's belief when it doesn't line up with scripture. Your's doesn't which is why you like to pass judgement on me .

But, this entire thread is not devoted to arguing with you about the merits you bring. It is to debate the PROPOSITION I included above.

Your opinion. It has a subject you just don't care to discuss it. You've taken your own thread off topic.

Where do you stand? E-1, E-2, or E-3. Anything else is a diversion, for we've argued the other stuff to death in other threads.

I'm asking for the APPLICATION of the atonement here -- period.

Surrender to the righteousness of God. "Jesus Christ" and you will be atoned. No surrender, no atonement. Men do not receive atonement with out complete submission. I know you'll disagree but it isn't me you disagree with but, the scriptures.
Instead you'll try to tell me I'm a universalist again because it's the only reply you can come up with I guess. Do you disagree we have to surrender to Christ?
MB

 

[Rippon]

Calvinist by the thousands are headed right back to where they came from, the Roman Catholic Church. and they are universalist.

Nonsense quote of the day.Courtesy of MB.