Accountability

[Protestant]

Am I the only board member who discerns the same Scriptures being debated endlessly again and again?

How many times must Biblicist patiently and biblically refute the same persistent errors brought forth by the same insistent Arminian/Pelagian/Humanists?

Let’s be honest. The Bible stresses man’s accountability for his sinful actions.

The Bible also stresses God’s free grace which actually saves those He wills to save.

Man is accountable to God, yet God is not accountable to man.

“And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

Arminians would have God accountable to man.

Based on man’s ‘foreseen’ choices and decisions God then ordains the future, never overriding man’s will.

In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.

To do so is to rob the will of its divine attribute called ‘freedom of choice.’

To rob the will of its divine ‘freedom of choice’ is to rob man of his divine ‘humanity.’

To rob man of his divine ‘humanity’ is to make him nothing more than a puppet and robot deterministically ‘programmed’ to do his Master’s bidding.

That bidding may entail the eternal pains of Hellfire or the eternal highs of Heaven.

One never knows in which direction one’s fate is fixed.

Furthermore, one cannot change his fate; try as desperately as he may.

That, in the mind of the recalcitrant Arminian, is the God of Calvinism.

But, alas, Christians who understand and defend the doctrines of grace have a very different understanding as to the nature of God, His attributes, His grace, as well as His freedom to do as He pleases on Earth as He does in Heaven.

Let us also not forget the absolute deleterious, destructive effects of sin which our opponents make of little consequence due to the fictitious ‘enabling grace’ they claim which is given to all men equally.

Must the reader be reminded that all of God’s eternal purposes (i.e., eternal decrees) have holy and most wise motives, though the outcomes may be different?

Whether it be the condemnation of the reprobates judged for the sins they willingly and freely committed -- or the salvation of the Elect who do not deserve His mercy and compassion…….both have an equally holy and most wise motive and purpose in the will of God.

In the former the motive and purpose is to judge those deserving of punishment to the praise of His glorious justice.

In the latter the motive and purpose is to save from deserved punishment those He loves to the praise of His glorious grace.

All men deserve justice.

No man deserves grace.

It is God alone who chooses the recipients of saving grace based on nothing deserving or ‘good’ in man.

That is why the Bible teaches ‘salvation is of the Lord.’

When properly understood there is no room for ‘boasting’ which many on this board have a propensity to do.

 

[Iconoclast]

Am I the only board member who discerns the same Scriptures being debated endlessly again and again?

No...we all see it:wavey: The good news is..your eyesight is still good.

How many times must Biblicist patiently and biblically refute the same persistent errors brought forth by the same insistent Arminian/Pelagian/Humanists?

he is shredding their attempts quite masterfully....I enjoy the directness of his responses that shuts the door on the false ideas every time.

Let’s be honest. The Bible stresses man’s accountability for his sinful actions.

The Bible also stresses God’s free grace which actually saves those He wills to save.

:thumbs:

Man is accountable to God, yet God is not accountable to man.

“And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

Arminians would have God accountable to man.

sad but true...

Based on man’s ‘foreseen’ choices and decisions God then ordains the future, never overriding man’s will.

In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.

Yes...that is exactly what they do...good point:wavey:

To do so is to rob the will of its divine attribute called ‘freedom of choice.’

To rob the will of its divine ‘freedom of choice’ is to rob man of his divine ‘humanity.’

To rob man of his divine ‘humanity’ is to make him nothing more than a puppet and robot deterministically ‘programmed’ to do his Master’s bidding.

That bidding may entail the eternal pains of Hellfire or the eternal highs of Heaven.

One never knows in which direction one’s fate is fixed.

Furthermore, one cannot change his fate; try as desperately as he may.

That, in the mind of the recalcitrant Arminian, is the God of Calvinism.

In a nutshell...

But, alas, Christians who understand and defend the doctrines of grace have a very different understanding as to the nature of God, His attributes, His grace, as well as His freedom to do as He pleases on Earth as He does in Heaven.

Let us also not forget the absolute deleterious, destructive effects of sin which our opponents make of little consequence due to the fictitious ‘enabling grace’ they claim which is given to all men equally.

Must the reader be reminded that all of God’s eternal purposes (i.e., eternal decrees) have holy and most wise motives, though the outcomes may be different?

Whether it be the condemnation of the reprobates judged for the sins they willingly and freely committed -- or the salvation of the Elect who do not deserve His mercy and compassion…….both have an equally holy and most wise motive and purpose in the will of God.

yes again.

In the former the motive and purpose is to judge those deserving of punishment to the praise of His glorious justice.

In the latter the motive and purpose is to save from deserved punishment those He loves to the praise of His glorious grace.

All men deserve justice.

No man deserves grace.

It is God alone who chooses the recipients of saving grace based on nothing deserving or ‘good’ in man.

That is why the Bible teaches ‘salvation is of the Lord.’

When properly understood there is no room for ‘boasting’ which many on this board have a propensity to do.

good summation!

 

[convicted1]

Am I the only board member who discerns the same Scriptures being debated endlessly again and again?

How many times must Biblicist patiently and biblically refute the same persistent errors brought forth by the same insistent Arminian/Pelagian/Humanists?

Let’s be honest. The Bible stresses man’s accountability for his sinful actions.

The Bible also stresses God’s free grace which actually saves those He wills to save.

Man is accountable to God, yet God is not accountable to man.

“And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

Arminians would have God accountable to man.

Based on man’s ‘foreseen’ choices and decisions God then ordains the future, never overriding man’s will.

In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.

To do so is to rob the will of its divine attribute called ‘freedom of choice.’

To rob the will of its divine ‘freedom of choice’ is to rob man of his divine ‘humanity.’

To rob man of his divine ‘humanity’ is to make him nothing more than a puppet and robot deterministically ‘programmed’ to do his Master’s bidding.

That bidding may entail the eternal pains of Hellfire or the eternal highs of Heaven.

One never knows in which direction one’s fate is fixed.

Furthermore, one cannot change his fate; try as desperately as he may.

That, in the mind of the recalcitrant Arminian, is the God of Calvinism.

But, alas, Christians who understand and defend the doctrines of grace have a very different understanding as to the nature of God, His attributes, His grace, as well as His freedom to do as He pleases on Earth as He does in Heaven.

Let us also not forget the absolute deleterious, destructive effects of sin which our opponents make of little consequence due to the fictitious ‘enabling grace’ they claim which is given to all men equally.

Must the reader be reminded that all of God’s eternal purposes (i.e., eternal decrees) have holy and most wise motives, though the outcomes may be different?

Whether it be the condemnation of the reprobates judged for the sins they willingly and freely committed -- or the salvation of the Elect who do not deserve His mercy and compassion…….both have an equally holy and most wise motive and purpose in the will of God.

In the former the motive and purpose is to judge those deserving of punishment to the praise of His glorious justice.

In the latter the motive and purpose is to save from deserved punishment those He loves to the praise of His glorious grace.

All men deserve justice.

No man deserves grace.

It is God alone who chooses the recipients of saving grace based on nothing deserving or ‘good’ in man.

That is why the Bible teaches ‘salvation is of the Lord.’

When properly understood there is no room for ‘boasting’ which many on this board have a propensity to do.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Wow...where to start...

Let's take a little time to learn some facts:

In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.

vs...

I ascribe to grace THE COMMENCEMENT, CONTINUANCE AND CONSUMATION OF ALL GOOD. To such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will or do anything good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing, this exciting, this following and this co-operative grace. From this statement it will clearly appear that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it was reported of me, too much to man’s free will: for the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force”? That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations that may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, - whether it be irresistible or not: With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. -Jacobus Arminius

 

[Skandelon]

and again...

In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.

vs...

...there is nothing within an indeterminist [Arminian] framework as I have developed it in this essay that would prevent us from recognizing that there are special cases (e.g., divine inspiration of scripture; various answers to prayer) in which God overrides the human will and determines human choice. In these cases the means by which God determines human choice may well include decisive conditioning of human choices by way of God's directly intervening in both the person's external and internal (mental) environment so as to bring about the divinely desired outcome, in a way similar to that envisioned by compatibilists. The chief differences between this conception of particular decisive conditioning that I am suggesting here and the version of decisive conditioning envisioned by compatibilists are:

a) according to my proposal, God's action in conditioning is not derived from a general set of eternal divine decrees (hence such actions on God's part truly are special cases, rather than the universal case as compatibilists would maintain), and

b) according to my proposal, the decisive conditioning of human choice counts as overriding human freedom (i.e., the human agent's choice in such cases is determined; hence, it is not an example of the exercise of contra-causal freedom).

 

[Inspector Javert]

Let’s be honest. The Bible stresses man’s accountability for his sinful actions.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

The Bible also stresses God’s free grace which actually saves those He wills to save.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Man is accountable to God, yet God is not accountable to man.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Arminians would have God accountable to man.

No, just true to His own Word...
Here's a secret, so would you and all other Calvinists.

Based on man’s ‘foreseen’ choices and decisions God then ordains the future,

Wrong.

never overriding man’s will.

Wrong again, he does so regularly.

In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred

It isn't sacred. We just understand that it actually exists.

and God dare not violate it.

God "violates" it at His good pleasure, and whenever he wishes.

To do so is to rob the will of its divine attribute called ‘freedom of choice.’

To do so is to rob the will of it's "freedom of choice"...but "freedom of choice" isn't necessarily a "Divine attribute" at all.
In fact, the abuse of the will, such as sinning, is anything but "Divine".

To rob the will of its divine ‘freedom of choice’ is to rob man of his divine ‘humanity.’

No, they remain humans whenever God chooses to determine man's actions.

To rob man of his divine ‘humanity’ is to make him nothing more than a puppet and robot deterministically ‘programmed’ to do his Master’s bidding.

To rob him of freedom of Choice is to make him a robot, yes.

One never knows in which direction one’s fate is fixed.

Given Calvinism, one cannot know with objective certainty that they are going to heaven, that is true. They can't rely on God's promises, since God never promises anyone that they are indeed "elect", or that Christ died for their personal sins specifically.

Furthermore, one cannot change his fate; try as desperately as he may.

Given Calvinism, this is true.

That, in the mind of the recalcitrant Arminian, is the God of Calvinism.

That, in the mind of any educated and objective observer is, actually the God of Calvinism. This includes many Calvinist scholars who have readilly admitted as much.

But, alas, Christians who understand and defend the doctrines of grace have a very different understanding as to the nature of God, His attributes, His grace, as well as His freedom to do as He pleases on Earth as He does in Heaven.

Yes, they do.

Let us also not forget the absolute deleterious, destructive effects of sin

No one is forgetting the deleterious and destructive effects of sin.

fictitious ‘enabling grace’ they claim which is given to all men equally.

Who ever said it was given "EQUALLY"?
You misunderstand at least that much about Arminianism.

Must the reader be reminded that all of God’s eternal purposes (i.e., eternal decrees) have holy and most wise motives, though the outcomes may be different?

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Whether it be the condemnation of the reprobates judged for the sins they willingly and freely committed -- or the salvation of the Elect who do not deserve His mercy and compassion…….both have an equally holy and most wise motive and purpose in the will of God.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

In the former the motive and purpose is to judge those deserving of punishment to the praise of His glorious justice.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.
Actually, it's not THE motive and purpose.....there's more to it than that.

In the latter the motive and purpose is to save from deserved punishment those He loves to the praise of His glorious grace.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

All men deserve justice.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

No man deserves grace.

Yes, now tell us something EVERYONE on B.B. doesn't already know.

It is God alone who chooses the recipients of saving grace based on nothing deserving or ‘good’ in man.

Yes, and those persons happen to be "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord".

That is why the Bible teaches ‘salvation is of the Lord.’

That's part of it, also simply the fact that he envisioned and conceived and planned it to begin with, yeah...so what?

When properly understood there is no room for ‘boasting’

Correct, and everyone on B.B. knows this too:
Here's something I know that you don't:
1.) Neither Calvinists nor Arminians "boast"
inasmuch as neither believes that works are what saves.

which many on this board have a propensity to do.

No, they don't. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians on this board do that.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

No, just true to His own Word...
Here's a secret, so would you and all other Calvinists.

Wrong.

Wrong again, he does so regularly.

It isn't sacred. We just understand that it actually exists.

God "violates" it at His good pleasure, and whenever he wishes.

To do so is to rob the will of it's "freedom of choice"...but "freedom of choice" isn't necessarily a "Divine attribute" at all.
In fact, the abuse of the will, such as sinning, is anything but "Divine".

No, they remain humans whenever God chooses to determine man's actions.

To rob him of freedom of Choice is to make him a robot, yes.

Given Calvinism, one cannot know with objective certainty that they are going to heaven, that is true. They can't rely on God's promises, since God never promises anyone that they are indeed "elect", or that Christ died for their personal sins specifically.

Given Calvinism, this is true.

That, in the mind of any educated and objective observer is, actually the God of Calvinism. This includes many Calvinist scholars who have readilly admitted as much.

Yes, they do.

No one is forgetting the deleterious and destructive effects of sin.

Who ever said it was given "EQUALLY"?
You misunderstand at least that much about Arminianism.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.
Actually, it's not THE motive and purpose.....there's more to it than that.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

Yes, now tell us something EVERYONE on B.B. doesn't already know.

Yes, and those persons happen to be "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord".

That's part of it, also simply the fact that he envisioned and conceived and planned it to begin with, yeah...so what?

Correct, and everyone on B.B. knows this too:
Here's something I know that you don't:
1.) Neither Calvinists nor Arminians "boast"
inasmuch as neither believes that works are what saves.

No, they don't. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians on this board do that.

Standing Ovation!!!!!!!

 

[convicted1]

Standing Ovation!!!!!!!

Ehhhhhhh, set down for I hit you with my nanner!!!! LOL

 

[convicted1]

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

No, just true to His own Word...
Here's a secret, so would you and all other Calvinists.

Wrong.

Wrong again, he does so regularly.

It isn't sacred. We just understand that it actually exists.

God "violates" it at His good pleasure, and whenever he wishes.

To do so is to rob the will of it's "freedom of choice"...but "freedom of choice" isn't necessarily a "Divine attribute" at all.
In fact, the abuse of the will, such as sinning, is anything but "Divine".

No, they remain humans whenever God chooses to determine man's actions.

To rob him of freedom of Choice is to make him a robot, yes.

Given Calvinism, one cannot know with objective certainty that they are going to heaven, that is true. They can't rely on God's promises, since God never promises anyone that they are indeed "elect", or that Christ died for their personal sins specifically.

Given Calvinism, this is true.

That, in the mind of any educated and objective observer is, actually the God of Calvinism. This includes many Calvinist scholars who have readilly admitted as much.

Yes, they do.

No one is forgetting the deleterious and destructive effects of sin.

Who ever said it was given "EQUALLY"?
You misunderstand at least that much about Arminianism.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.
Actually, it's not THE motive and purpose.....there's more to it than that.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

Yes, now tell us something we don't know.

Yes, now tell us something EVERYONE on B.B. doesn't already know.

Yes, and those persons happen to be "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord".

That's part of it, also simply the fact that he envisioned and conceived and planned it to begin with, yeah...so what?

Correct, and everyone on B.B. knows this too:
Here's something I know that you don't:
1.) Neither Calvinists nor Arminians "boast"
inasmuch as neither believes that works are what saves.

No, they don't. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians on this board do that.

Even though we may no longer be on the same side of the c/a debate, I still have an affinity for you, and the way you express yourself in your posts. :thumbs:

Not bad for an arrogant jerk who used to know the truth, no?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Not bad for an arrogant jerk who used to know the truth, no?

If you are calling me an "arrogant jerk" I agree completely.........I simply insist you add the caveat that I am an entertaining and sometimes witty one.

If you are calling YOURSELF the "arrogant jerk", than you are wrong. Completely wrong. You have a wonderful Spirit and I envy it :flower:

Even your new-found Calvinism will never take that from you :wavey:

 

[InTheLight]

Arminians would have God accountable to man.

In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.

Let us also not forget the absolute deleterious, destructive effects of sin which our opponents make of little consequence due to the fictitious ‘enabling grace’ they claim which is given to all men equally.

 

[quantumfaith]

Ehhhhhhh, set down for I hit you with my nanner!!!! LOL

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Skandelon]

For those who may not pick up on this intent:

"Straw Man" is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated. -link

 

[convicted1]

If you are calling me an "arrogant jerk" I agree completely.........I simply insist you add the caveat that I am an entertaining and sometimes witty one.

If you are calling YOURSELF the "arrogant jerk", than you are wrong. Completely wrong. You have a wonderful Spirit and I envy it :flower:

Even your new-found Calvinism will never take that from you :wavey:

No, one of our contemporairies(sp?) called me an arrogant jerk that used to know the truth. I wasn't calling you that. Sorry for the cornfusion.

 

[convicted1]

Now, where's that box of matches at?

 

[Inspector Javert]

No, one of our contemporairies(sp?) called me an arrogant jerk that used to know the truth. I wasn't calling you that. Sorry for the cornfusion.

I wasn't confused....I was just looking for an excuse to back-handedly say something nice to you. :thumbsup:

What with your bein' an heretical Calmeenanist and what-not I ain't about to go at it all straightforwardly or nothin'..........Me own folk might think I done turned over too!!! So, I have to go about it all sneak-di-fyed-like. I was just spreadin' the luv desite your new-fangled Calmeenanisticism and sech.:wavey:

 

[Winman]

No, one of our contemporairies(sp?) called me an arrogant jerk that used to know the truth. I wasn't calling you that. Sorry for the cornfusion.

In another thread you accused me of calling you an arrogant jerk. I challenge you to show where I ever said that about you.

If you can show where I EVER called you an arrogant jerk I will apologize, otherwise I expect an apology from you.

Willis, I owe you an apology, I did indeed call you an arrogant jerk. Here is where I did so.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2005738&postcount=23

I just want to show you I am a man of my word. I honestly did not remember calling you that name, and in fact did several searches but could not find it. I did yet another search and finally found it.

So, I apologize.

 

[Iconoclast]

here you go ITL...since you have come out of hiding...i saved my questions for you....


Default another chance....
In another thread that was closed...I asked ITL to respond biblically to these questions that arose. He might have wanted to respond, so I will offer him another chance here! feel free to participate scripturally....

InTheLight

hello ITL...let's see what is on your mind

And according to Calvinism this so-called confusion on Skandelon's part was ordained by God

.
ITL...can you name anything at all...that has come to pass, or that will come to pass...that is {not ordained of God} could you offer a biblical explanation of this how God is God, and yet...in your mind things happen outside of His control. be specific if you can.

Quote:
Icon, it must be nice to be one of the elect

ITL.....are you saying that you are not one of God's elect?
The way you post this indicates you see being elect of God as a dirty word, or something you can speak with contempt about.
Are all , everyone, who believes by God given faith...ELECT..??
Again...answer and offer some bible please..like here;

1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,

according to the faith of God's elect,

and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

I enjoy this teaching and am thankful everyday for it...are you?
Do you believe you are elect of God?

Quote:
and completely in the know on all doctrinal issues.

If you can show where i make such a claim...post it. i do strive to know as much as i can know and have much to still learn.

Is it possible you are trying to undermine me personally as if to dismiss what i post because we are not in agreement? Be a big boy and offer where you think i am in error,and offer scripture to demonstrate if I offer something defective....i will read and consider it..I will surely do that.

Do you think it is just possible that you do not like the teaching itself..on an emotional level.So you think that by trying to portray me in such a way as you have done you think it will all just disappear? maybe think that over a bit more. ITL...offer whatever critique you want...i welcome it if it is meant to correct me.

Quote:
Yep, throw it on the pile with the other contradictions.

ok..let's once again look at your list here...
Quote:
God requires all to repent,
Yes he does....
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Quote:
but then will not enable all to do so.

ITL....where does it say God has to save all men.he has not purposed to do so.That he saves any is His business.He has chosen to save all he can jstly save according to His Holy purpose.I trust God is doing just as he has Covenanted to do...Do you believe so...or do you find fault with God..Rom9

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
you seem to indicate there is ITL
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

ITL..could you speak to these verses and explain your understanding to me, rather than try to diminish me..based on your speculation on my character.

Show me how these verses do not say what they clearly say on this matter as you find this idea .....not correct.

Quote:
A person has free will but only if God enables it

.
free will does not exist...so this starts on a wrong premise.

Quote:
God is sovereign and in control of everything

,
The God of the bible declares himself to be...do you believe He is ITL, or do you think of a god who can only do what you approve of?

Quote:
but the result of the Fall--the total inability to seek or come to God--was Adam's doing.

Did Adam do it? or did God send angels to tie him down and force feed him?
God gave Him his word and the certainty of what took place...Adam sinned.
God did not sin.
This whole let's blame God for Adams sin...comes 24/7 from those who turn from the biblically revealed truth.

Quote:
The "whole world" does not really mean the whole world. "Whosoever" doesn't really mean anyone.

the context defines it to anyone who is honest about it.

Quote:
I'm sure there are others.

there are no contradictions...but there are many other misunderstandings.

 

[Protestant]

Wow...where to start...

Let's take a little time to learn some facts:

vs..."it relates solely to the mode of operation, - whether it be irresistible or not: With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered." -Jacobus Arminius

Your quote fails to provide your source material.

Scholars always cite sources when referencing others.

In your case I highly doubt you found the quote by reading the exhaustive works of Arminius for yourself.

Rather you lifted the quote from a recent anti-Cal source....in which case to avoid 'boasting' of your scholarly methods you should cite both primary and secondary sources.

Re: your 'fact'..... it proves the very point in question.

Arminians, as well as Arminius, believe it is man's 'free will decision' which holds supreme authority in either accepting or rejecting the 'grace which is offered.'

If man's will determines to accept the grace which is offered, then grace is his for the asking.

If, however, man's will determines to reject the grace which is offered, then God respects and honors man's decision, never violating the will's freedom to reject.

Contrary to the belief system of ALL Arminians and Arminius, Scripture teaches that unless the Spirit sovereignly and mercifully regenerates (makes alive in Christ) unbelieving, Christ-rejecting sinners, those sinners will remain dead in their sins and trespasses, ever continuing as willful God-haters and Satan worshippers, doomed to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.

Those Scriptures which prove the doctrines to which we hold have been repeatedly stated, re-stated, re-re-stated, as well as repeatedly demonstrated logically, grammatically, and contextually.

 

[Skandelon]

Scholars always cite sources when referencing others.

I did cite the author and it was all that was needed to adequately demonstrate that your statement was an erroneous straw man. Which, no doubt is why you shift the attention from that fact to ad hominem by implying I'm not being scholarly enough to cite the full source or actually read Arminius' works myself. In fact, I have read most of Arminius' works, and Calvin's institutes as well, but this isn't about me. You'd like to make it about me because you don't want to deal with your error. .

Arminians, as well as Arminius, believe it is man's 'free will decision' which holds supreme authority in either accepting or rejecting the 'grace which is offered.'

Fine, then make that argument, and provide a quote to support it, but that is not what you stated before. There is a huge difference in claiming that God has chosen to give man the authority over his willingness to accept or reject God's gracious provision and claiming that God 'never overrides man’s will because man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.' I think you know better, which is why you are shifting the argument to be about my citing of sources and now rewording your argument to be a bit more reasonable.

I'm fine to debate you, but debate me, not your strawman...and no need to get personal. Oh, and if you REALLY wanted a citation there is a thing called 'google' where you can pretty much search for any quote and every citation you could ever want about that quote will come up. Hope that helps. :thumbsup: