Are there even biblical arminians posting On The baptist Board?

[Yeshua1]

that would hold to the 5 decrees of the official Arminian theology positions?

The Five Articles
of Remonstrance

Conditional election
Unlimited atonement
Total depravity
Prevenient grace
Conditional preservation

 

[HeirofSalvation]

that would hold to the 5 decrees of the official Arminian theology positions?

The Five Articles
of Remonstrance

Conditional election
Unlimited atonement
Total depravity
Prevenient grace
Conditional preservation

Yes....there are, but "Conditional Preservation" has always been a debatable one, and to call oneself "Arminian" does not necessarily imply a belief in the last one as you pose.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes....there are, but "Conditional Preservation" has always been a debatable one, and to call oneself "Arminian" does not necessarily imply a belief in the last one as you pose.

think that one is debatable within Arminian circles, as even the "founder" of the system was not sure of it, just was showing there might be a real possibility o fone commiting Apostasy!

Also think many claiming there are Arms here would be surprised that they pretty much would affirm with cals that Man is dead in sin/depraived, and that God Grace must be applied in order to have us respond by faith to Christ, as unless He enables us we cannot come to him!

some seem to hold to deniel of original sin, intact free will, Bible message alone can save us etc...

THAT is NOT arminianism!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

think that one is debatable within Arminian circles, as even the "founder" of the system was not sure of it

,

Yes...I know...and hence my initial reply. You cannot claim that "Conditional Salvation" is inherent in the Arminian system when it isn't. We are in agreement.

just was showing there might be a real possibility o fone commiting Apostasy!

"Apostasy?".....Have you even looked up that word in Webster's? I doubt it...."Heresy" would be a strong and unnecessary word....but "Apostate?". You are destroying your own credibility by playing fast and loose here.

Also think many claiming there are Arms here would be surprised that they pretty much would affirm with cals that Man is dead in sin/depraived, and that God Grace must be applied in order to have us respond by faith to Christ,

They would not be surprised, I think, in the least. Most here would accept what you stated here.

some seem to hold to deniel of original sin

,
Please count for us, on one hand how many on this board deny the Doctrine of "Original Sin"

intact free will

,
Correct, for once...Arminians affirm this.

Bible message alone can save us

Since no one actually claims that the "message" saves anyone....I will go ahead and qualify what you obviously meant here:
and that is that man possesses the capacity to respond within himself (without a specific or intentional act of grace unique to that particular individual) to respond positively to the gospel message......That would be this "Prevenient Grace" of which you speak....and yes, it is inherent in the Arminian system. Most, again, on Baptist Board would assume this, but quite a few do not.

THAT is NOT arminianism!

No, I suppose it wouldn't be...but now that I have corrected your errors about what confessional Arminians believe...I am sure you will realize that (whether they know it or not) there are many "Arminians" on this board.....Many on this board are Arminians and they know it, but there are many who don't know it, because they think (wrongly) that "Conditional Preservation" is a confessionally inherent part of the system, and it isn't.

A very limited few...are 100% Arminian...but they are actually confused by the latter part into calling themselves "Calvinist" because (and only because) they don't believe in "Conditional Preservation" and they have been sufficiently lied to into thinking that to call oneself "Arminian" necessarily implies this...it doesn't of course, but they have swallowed it in the same way that some Democrats who are otherwise sane have swallowed the notion that Republicans hate poor people and old people, and want people to starve to death and what-not.....It's the same phenomenon. Repetition of a falsehood has created validity to the lie.

 

[Yeshua1]

,

Yes...I know...and hence my initial reply. You cannot claim that "Conditional Salvation" is inherent in the Arminian system when it isn't. We are in agreement.

"Apostasy?".....Have you even looked up that word in Webster's? I doubt it...."Heresy" would be a strong and unnecessary word....but "Apostate?". You are destroying your own credibility by playing fast and loose here.

How about one can get to a place where would deny the need for a saviour, repudiate jesus as their saviour( assuming you help to means to lose salvation!)



They would not be surprised, I think, in the least. Most here would accept what you stated here.



,

Please count for us, on one hand how many on this board deny the Doctrine of "Original Sin"

Some seem to hold to us being born essentially untainted by the fakll, that we would not be held by God as being sinners until making a conscious choice to start sinning!

Goes in with also belief of one having free will intact enough to respond by faith to the gospel WITHOUT the additional grace of God, either as a cal/Arm affirms that!


,
Correct, for once...Arminians affirm this.

Since no one actually claims that the "message" saves anyone....I will go ahead and qualify what you obviously meant here:
and that is that man possesses the capacity to respond within himself (without a specific or intentional act of grace unique to that particular individual) to respond positively to the gospel message......That would be this "Prevenient Grace" of which you speak....and yes, it is inherent in the Arminian system. Most, again, on Baptist Board would assume this, but quite a few do not.



No, I suppose it wouldn't be...but now that I have corrected your errors about what confessional Arminians believe...I am sure you will realize that (whether they know it or not) there are many "Arminians" on this board.....Many on this board are Arminians and they know it, but there are many who don't know it, because they think (wrongly) that "Conditional Preservation" is a confessionally inherent part of the system, and it isn't.

A very limited few...are 100% Arminian...but they are actually confused by the latter part into calling themselves "Calvinist" because (and only because) they don't believe in "Conditional Preservation" and they have been sufficiently lied to into thinking that to call oneself "Arminian" necessarily implies this...it doesn't of course, but they have swallowed it in the same way that some Democrats who are otherwise sane have swallowed the notion that Republicans hate poor people and old people, and want people to starve to death and what-not.....It's the same phenomenon. Repetition of a falsehood has created validity to the lie.

Most of who classify themselves as such would seem to not realise that we are born in a sin state, that we MUST have God apply effectual grace towards us, and that IF left to "just" free will response, NONE of us would make it!

 

[Amy.G]

Is there such a thing as a "biblical" Arminian? :laugh:

 

[mont974x4]

Is there such a thing as a "biblical" Arminian? :laugh:

shhh I think the OP meant "classical" Arminian. Get some popcorn and enjoy the show you know was predestined to happen.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Is there such a thing as a "biblical" Arminian? :laugh:

:thumbs:NICE!!!!:thumbs::applause: That was a good one...

 

[Yeshua1]

shhh I think the OP meant "classical" Arminian. Get some popcorn and enjoy the show you know was predestined to happen.

actually, before converting to being a full calvinist, did see the website for 'Evangelical Arminianism" and they seemed to be the best of the group holding to it!

 

[InTheLight]

How many times will you ask this?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=75234

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Most of who classify themselves as such would seem to not realise that we are born in a sin state,

No, any who would actually classify themselves as such, would affirm that unequivocally. That notion is inherent in confessional Arminianism. Arminians actually assume this....It isn't "Original Sin" you are talking about per se, but "total inability" and the one does not follow necessarily from the other. But, due to the fact that the average American at least has no knowledge of actual logic, argumentation, or critical thinking (most can hardly read) it is easy to sneak in the equivocation that they are synonymous...since the one is true, and the other assumption is easliy smuggled in without their knowledge. Calvinists have been banking on this ignorance for years. They take a passing knowledge of logical thought, and they enslave countless masses into accepting their assumptions...Your tactic of equivocation is one such tactic, and it is, sadly, as efffective against the averaged fattened and intellectually lazy American as any number of tricks are.

that we MUST have God apply effectual grace towards us, and that IF left to "just" free will response, NONE of us would make it!

NO....they believe in "Prevenient Grace"...which is not "effectual"....but, you are simply not asking about Arminianism, you are asking whether Arminians are Calvinists...news-flash...they are not. They DO affirm the necessity of a specific and special act of Grace for salvation...but they do not view it as "effectual"....No, they don't believe in what they sometimes call: "grace-rape"....they do not believe that God forces himself on anyone.....either via physical force or by uncontrollably drugging the recipient of his "grace" into "freely" submitting to his irresistable will of complete intimacy....You are taking the obviously true assumption of "prevenient grace" and smuggling in it's "effectuality" without missing a beat....It may work on many intellectually fattened Americans here, and obviously does, but it doesn't work on me.

How about one can get to a place where would deny the need for a saviour, repudiate jesus as their saviour( assuming you help to means to lose salvation!)

How about....none of that is relevant to the question at hand at all.....and this makes no sense.

 

[convicted1]

Yes...I know...and hence my initial reply. You cannot claim that "Conditional Salvation" is inherent in the Arminian system when it isn't. We are in agreement.



"Apostasy?".....Have you even looked up that word in Webster's? I doubt it...."Heresy" would be a strong and unnecessary word....but "Apostate?". You are destroying your own credibility by playing fast and loose here.



They would not be surprised, I think, in the least. Most here would accept what you stated here.


Please count for us, on one hand how many on this board deny the Doctrine of "Original Sin".

Correct, for once...Arminians affirm this.

Since no one actually claims that the "message" saves anyone....I will go ahead and qualify what you obviously meant here:
and that is that man possesses the capacity to respond within himself (without a specific or intentional act of grace unique to that particular individual) to respond positively to the gospel message......That would be this "Prevenient Grace" of which you speak....and yes, it is inherent in the Arminian system. Most, again, on Baptist Board would assume this, but quite a few do not.



No, I suppose it wouldn't be...but now that I have corrected your errors about what confessional Arminians believe...I am sure you will realize that (whether they know it or not) there are many "Arminians" on this board.....Many on this board are Arminians and they know it, but there are many who don't know it, because they think (wrongly) that "Conditional Preservation" is a confessionally inherent part of the system, and it isn't.

A very limited few...are 100% Arminian...but they are actually confused by the latter part into calling themselves "Calvinist" because (and only because) they don't believe in "Conditional Preservation" and they have been sufficiently lied to into thinking that to call oneself "Arminian" necessarily implies this...it doesn't of course, but they have swallowed it in the same way that some Democrats who are otherwise sane have swallowed the notion that Republicans hate poor people and old people, and want people to starve to death and what-not.....It's the same phenomenon. Repetition of a falsehood has created validity to the lie.

I deny Augustine's idea of OS, but I do agree with the biblical version of it. Adam died and now causes all of us to die the physical death. We die spiritually after we knowingly and willingly sin against God.

 

[Amy.G]

I deny Augustine's idea of OS, but I do agree with the biblical version of it. Adam died and now causes all of us to die the physical death. We die spiritually after we knowingly and willingly sin against God.

So infants don't need the Savior?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't believe in total depravity or the Augustinian view of original sin.

In fact, I don't agree with anything that came out of the Latin West.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I deny Augustine's idea of OS, but I do agree with the biblical version of it. Adam died and now causes all of us to die the physical death. We die spiritually after we knowingly and willingly sin against God.

Agreed, This thread is merely an equivocation betwixt "Original Sin" the yet unmentioned "Original Guilt" (also assumed) and "Total Inability"...but your assessment is Biblically and obviously correct. In Adam, we all do die (physically) but Adam also begat Seth..."in his own image" and that was, indeed, as a sinner, as any Calvinist would teach....Calvinists, though, usually do not distinguish between this "Spiritual Death" and "Physical Death"... "Original Sin", is indeed true....but too many assumptions are usually smuggled in with that obvious Biblical Truth.....Yes, there is indeed a "Biblical" doctrine of "Original Sin", but it doesn't entail the "Total inability" or even the "Original Guilt" that Calvinist Theology usually equates with it..........They may BOTH actually be true!!!!!! But they shouldn't use the Biblical expression of "Original Sin" in order to "prove" it!!!....They are NOT synonymous. That is where the confusion usually lies. It is a lack of teaching people basic logic. And Americans are indeed rarely taught how to distinguish propositions like these, without confusing them...Most simply have not been taught or learned how to do so.

 

[convicted1]

So infants don't need the Savior?

Never stated this.


If a child accidently shoots one of it's siblings, did it kill? Yup. Will a court convict this child(I am talking about a 3-5 year old, btw)? No. Why? It has to do with intent. Sin is a concious effort in rebelling against God. To KNOW to do good, and doeth it not, to him, is sin.


When a little kid steals a cookie after their parents told them not to, and they lie and say they were getting it for them, did that child lie? Absolutely. Is them lying to their parents a sin. Sure. They lied because they didn't want their "bum bum" swatted, and not that they knew they were lying in the sight of God.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So infants don't need the Savior?

No, they don't....as the Apostle Paul said:
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Never stated this.


If a child accidently shoots one of it's siblings, did it kill? Yup. Will a court convict this child(I am talking about a 3-5 year old, btw)? No. Why? It has to do with intent. Sin is a concious effort in rebelling against God. To KNOW to do good, and doeth it not, to him, is sin.


When a little kid steals a cookie after their parents told them not to, and they lie and say they were getting it for them, did that child lie? Absolutely. Is them lying to their parents a sin. Sure. They lied because they didn't want their "bum bum" swatted, and not that they knew they were lying in the sight of God.

Solid....Solid.....and true on all accounts....My little girls (I have four between the ages of 4 and ....well...zero)...and it is amazing how often they are getting things, "For me".

 

[convicted1]

No, they don't....as the Apostle Paul said:
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

I dunno about that Brother.

Without Christ's work on the cross, even infants would be in hell. Christ died, and we who believe, are saved. I believe that babies are born in a "state of grace", where God overlooks their sins until they truly know the ramifications of said sins. Sin is a knowing and willing breaking of God's commands.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I dunno about that Brother.

Without Christ's work on the cross, even infants would be in hell. Christ died, and we who believe, are saved. I believe that babies are born in a "state of grace", where God overlooks their sins until they truly know the ramifications of said sins. Sin is a knowing and willing breaking of God's commands.

That may be true...I honestly don't know for sure. So, maybe I should be careful about how I express the notion that there are NO dead infants who are in Hell...possibly, they are somehow "saved" (but that assumes "Original Guilt") and frankly...I do not presently accept or assume that...It could be true I guess. But, we now then have a quandry don't we???? If all who die in infancy are somehow "covered" or "forgiven" or are party to "grace" or (pick your verbiage) then it now behooves us, as Christians, to attempt to ensure that as many people die in infancy as concievably possible...Abortion, then, is God's greatest harvest of souls.... We cannot argue from some ignorance that "maybe they will all be saved"...because we absolutely know better. We are then left with a Calvinist assumption that only "elect" infants are saved...or we must think otherwise....I think "Original Guilt" might be the assumption we are making, which is giving you some pause. I don't blame you, it has dominated much of my thinking for most of my life...But we either are somehow forced to believe these possibilities:

1.) They are all born "guilty" and "condemned" but God saves them without respect to whether they ever do or do not, acknowledge him.
2.) There are some who are "elect" and will therefore be saved, and some who won't...and...sux to be the infant who wasn't "elect".
3.) None of them are, as of yet, actually guilty, and if they are "saved" than it is legally un-questionable as they are yet guilty of nothing, and they are therefore not discriminated against...(because they are too young to accept)...but neither are they given a "special" form of grace unavailable to all of us who had the mis-fortune to grow-up, because they are simply not legally guilty of any wrong-doing as we on this board obviously are...

An assumption of "Original Guilt" is critical here....and I am not sure, brother, whether that is supported Scripturally. It may be. But I am questioning whether the Bible itself, and not merely my own Baptist tradition...which stems from much Calvinist assumption... teaches this notion or not. Does it?