Are there NO Arminians here, JUST cals/non cals?

[HeirofSalvation]

The direct answer to the OP is that there are PLENTY of Arminians on BB....I daresay, most people who consider themselves "non-Cal" are very likely Arminians....but (like many issues) Arminians are never able to explain their beliefs and the beliefs of Arminians are usually "taught" to people by Calvinists who do not represent it faithfully. This is, I personally believe, usually out of ignorance than intentional mis-representation. Never ask a Calvinist to define Arminianism, ask an Arminian. Never ask an Arminian to define Calvinism, ask a Calvinist. (although personally, in my own experience, they are more likely to represent it faithfully than a Calvinist will Arminianism.)

 

[Yeshua1]

Not if you are going to lob the label Arminain around so loosely.

I was NOT addressing the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" though on this OP..

More in regards, do those NOT holding to Cal see themselves as agreeing with Arms that we are sinners that God MUST exercise his grace towards, in order to restore to us the 'free will" to accept/reject christ?

 

[mandym]

The direct answer to the OP is that there are PLENTY of Arminians on BB

Who are they?

....I daresay, most people who consider themselves "non-Cal" are very likely Arminians.

Who are they?

...but (like many issues) Arminians are never able to explain their beliefs and the beliefs of Arminians are usually "taught" to people by Calvinists who do not represent it faithfully. Never ask a Calvinist to define Arminianism, ask an Arminian. Never ask an Arminian to define Calvinism, ask a Calvinist. (although personally, in my own experience, they are more likely to represent it faithfully than a Calvinist will Arminianism.)

What?

 

[Yeshua1]

The direct answer to the OP is that there are PLENTY of Arminians on BB....I daresay, most people who consider themselves "non-Cal" are very likely Arminians....but (like many issues) Arminians are never able to explain their beliefs and the beliefs of Arminians are usually "taught" to people by Calvinists who do not represent it faithfully. This is, I personally believe, usually out of ignorance than intentional mis-representation. Never ask a Calvinist to define Arminianism, ask an Arminian. Never ask an Arminian to define Calvinism, ask a Calvinist. (although personally, in my own experience, they are more likely to represent it faithfully than a Calvinist will Arminianism.)

I know what cals here teach and believe...

problem is sorting out between Arms/non cals here..

is the major difference being Arms do hold to God MUST Grace sinners before they accept/reject jesus, while non Cals think that we still have the "natural means" inherit in us to accept/reject christ, no external grace required from God?

 

[Yeshua1]

JesusFan/DaChaser1/Yeshua1 is what my father called an INSTIGATOR. Remember Junior High School when two boys would get in an argument and a crowd would gather? There would always be one fellow who got behind one of the boys and pushed him into the other to start a fight. That is an instigator.

Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Yeshua1 enjoys sowing discord.

no, its more that it just seems that whenever a cal asks an Arm or Non cal to better define their actual theolgy...

gets labeled as 'sowing discord" "askin it too many times" " not wanting a real answer"

why assume the negative, can 't we just answer the OP?

 

[mandym]

no[sic], its more that it just seems that whenever a cal asks an Arm or Non cal to better define their actual theolgy...[sic]

gets[sic] labeled as 'sowing discord" "askin[sic] it too many times" " not wanting a real answer"[sic]

Apparently you are not wanting to answer a real question. Why do you post the same threads over and over again?

 

[Yeshua1]

Many question my reading comprehension so it is will some expectation of ridicule that I question the premise that "Classical Arminianism" affirms salvation cannot be lost. Jesus said, if you are not for me, you are against me. To dangle the "possibility" of loss of salvation as an incentive to due diligence may seem wise, but the ends do not justify the means.

Scripture seems clear to me, they go out from us because they are not of us, i.e never born again. Thus you can think you were once saved, and then reject Jesus, but from my side of the street, you were never saved, just another tare spreading falsehood over truth.

Lets look at the first part of the first sentence, "incorporated into Christ" by "true" faith. Are we put into Christ by our faith or by God putting us there? Who decides whether or not our "faith" is true? Scripture says God does when He credits it as righteousness.

Do we become partakers of the Spirit when we learn from the gospel, or only when we are sealed in Christ. Just exactly what is meant by this ill defined phrase may underlie the division on the loss of salvation issue.

Arminianism would refer to more a view that while sinners, God has chosen out of his love to effectually apply his grace to ALL, basically undoing the effects of the fall, and allowing ALL to have the free will again to accept/reject jesus..

Would that line up with your ideas?

 

[mandym]

Arminianism would refer to more a view that while sinners, God has chosen out of his love to effectually apply his grace to ALL, basically undoing the effects of the fall, and allowing ALL to have the free will again to accept/reject jesus..[sic]

Would that line up with your ideas?

Aide from labeling wrong you defined it wrong. Maybe you should learn more about before starting inane and repeated threads about it.

 

[Winman]

no, its more that it just seems that whenever a cal asks an Arm or Non cal to better define their actual theolgy...

gets labeled as 'sowing discord" "askin it too many times" " not wanting a real answer"

why assume the negative, can 't we just answer the OP?

You have been answered probably dozens of times and you know it. The first couple of times I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but when you continue to ask the same questions repeatedly when you have been answered repeatedly shows you are just trying to instigate discord.

Play your game, maybe some are fooled, but I am not.

 

[Van]

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=A...t_Even_Know_It

Thanks for the Link, HOS. It appears to be an earnest attempt to put forth Arminianism with a minimum of vague assertions that can mean very different things.

1. Arminians believe Christ died for all mankind, not just for the elect.

2. Arminians believe in Total Spiritual Inability, but that God has overridden the inability with prevenient grace.

3. Arminians believe the grace of God's call through the gospel is resistible, so we feel the tug (i.e. Christ high and lifted up draws all men) but can reject it.

4. Arminians believe we are born again when we put our faith in Christ. They affirm when we believe we are united with Christ. But they are vague on the mechanism of becoming united, "incorporated in Christ by true faith". It appears they think a person becomes united "automatically" and seem not to address the view that those whose faith God credits as righteousness, are united with Christ by His supernatural act of transferring us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of the Son.

5. Arminians believe our individual election for salvation is conditioned on our autonomous faith in Christ. The article did not seem to address whether that election was God's before creation, or the person choosing to believe somehow becoming elect when automatically "incorporated" in Christ.

6. Arminians believe believers who have been "incorporated" into Christ are predestined to "final salvation." How that fits with the possibility of loss of salvation seems unclear.


7. Arminians either take no position (i.e possible loss of salvation is not denied) or they believe salvation can be lost by the individual's choice to not persevere in the faith.

8. Arminians reject penal substitution (code for limited atonement) but affirm penal satisfaction, explained as substitutionary atonement.

9. Arminians believe God knows the future exhaustively and are willing to ban anyone from their midst that does not agree.

10. Arminians believe God either causes or allows all things, but does not predestine all things. Therefore humans make autonomous decisions, affirming our culpability for our sins.

In summary, close but no cigar.

 

[Benjamin]

drfuss & Ben, are you able and willing to answer the Arminian questions:

1) Exactly what does "incorporated in Christ by true faith" mean?

2) Exactly what does being a "partaker of the Spirit" mean?

Not sure why you would lump me in with drfuss. I said accusations that Arminians teach one can lose is a strawman. Drfuss "boldly" contnued on "giving his biased interpretation" of Arminian doctrine to present they teach one can lose his salvation; IOW's he continued on presenting the strawman. So what else is new!

I won't say I have never heard an Arminian blatantly say one could lose his salvation anymore than I would say I never heard a Calvinist blatantly blame his immoral actions on being pre-determined to do so while assigning evil to God, and to to suggest either preach such a doctrine would be equally misrepresentative of the other's view and based on a strawman interpretation.


I wouldn't bother to try to explain the Arminian position here, on a board such as this, because it is too deep and the opponents aren't rational enough debaters to even begin to let valid points get established. It would be a complete waste of my time.


I will tell you this: In a nut shell the most accurate short explanation to what an Arminian beliefs add up to is that "if one turns from the faith" he was not a "true" believer in the first place. It is extremely very rare that I would find an credible Arminian that would disagree with that statement. Matter of fact I have been close personal friends with a Methodist Bishop for 20 years who oversees over 40 churches and we have discussed this very matter. He has told me that is what he believes and that he would take issue with a church teaching otherwise because it would amount to a doctrine of works based salvation and not of grace.


So if you all want to continue on with your strawman presentations go right on ahead because to me it just shows the opponent's ignorances and biases in the matter. It is even apparent that many of those who call themselves "non-cals" have bought into the rhetoric and this has much to with why many will not own the system, they don't want to be associated with the rhetoric and fail to recognize the fallacy, therefore it allow those who use it to get away with the use of it. I’m not here to proselytize and correct a bunch of obnoxious ignoramuses on the subject who ignore simple ethical rules of debate; I've got better things to do with my time than continue wasting it on this board and that is becoming more apparent all the time.

HoS is the only one I see here that is accurately, honestly, and intelligently presenting the view and seems to understand the big picture that is going on here in the minds of those who oppose it.

The Remonstrants clearly reject the notion that the teaching directly consists of that a true believer can fall away and says they could not in good conscience teach such a thing as it would neglect grace and the subject needs to be more fully determined from out of the scripture. Thus, I would suggest two options of remain for those who would continue to present such a strawman: 1) they have poor comprehension skills or 2) they are being disingenuous when they present the view of the other; hence are presenting a strawman. And, I have no intersts in getting into a debate or discussion with anyone who projects either or both of those qualities at the onset.

 

[Winman]

Not sure why you would lump me in with drfuss. I said accusations that Arminians teach one can lose is a strawman. Drfuss "boldly" contnued on "giving his biased interpretation" of Arminian doctrine to present they teach one can lose his salvation; IOW's he continued on presenting the strawman. So what else is new!

I won't say I have never heard an Arminian blatantly say one could lose his salvation anymore than I would say I never heard a Calvinist blatantly blame his immoral actions on being pre-determined to do so while assigning evil to God, and to to suggest either preach such a doctrine would be equally misrepresentative of the other's view and based on a strawman interpretation.


I wouldn't bother to try to explain the Arminian position here, on a board such as this, because it is too deep and the opponents aren't rational enough debaters to even begin to let valid points get established. It would be a complete waste of my time.


I will tell you this: In a nut shell the most accurate short explanation to what an Arminian beliefs add up to is that "if one turns from the faith" he was not a "true" believer in the first place. It is extremely very rare that I would find an credible Arminian that would disagree with that statement. Matter of fact I have been close personal friends with a Methodist Bishop for 20 years who oversees over 40 churches and we have discussed this very matter. He has told me that is what he believes and that he would take issue with a church teaching otherwise because it would amount to a doctrine of works based salvation and not of grace.


So if you all want to continue on with your strawman presentations go right on ahead because to me it just shows the opponent's ignorances and biases in the matter. It is even apparent that many of those who call themselves "non-cals" have bought into the rhetoric and this has much to with why many will not own the system, they don't want to be associated with the rhetoric and fail to recognize the fallacy, therefore it allow those who use it to get away with the use of it. I’m not here to proselytize and correct a bunch of obnoxious ignoramuses on the subject who ignore simple ethical rules of debate; I've got better things to do with my time than continue wasting it on this board and that is becoming more apparent all the time.

HoS is the only one I see here that is accurately, honestly, and intelligently presenting the view and seems to understand the big picture that is going on here in the minds of those who oppose it.

The Remonstrants clearly reject the notion that the teaching directly consists of that a true believer can fall away and says they could not in good conscience teach such a thing as it would neglect grace and the subject needs to be more fully determined from out of the scripture. Thus, I would suggest two options of remain for those who would continue to present such a strawman: 1) they have poor comprehension skills or 2) they are being disingenuous when they present the view of the other; hence are presenting a strawman. And, I have no intersts in getting into a debate or discussion with anyone who projects either or both of those qualities at the outset.

Good post Benjamin, but there is one more view. I would not call myself an Arminian because I do not believe in Perseverance of the Saints, I hold to Preservation of the Saints which is quite different. I do not believe I will be saved because I am faithful to Jesus, I believe I will be saved because Jesus is faithful to me. Jesus will never cast out in any wise any who come to him in faith (John 6:37). I truly want to be faithful to Jesus, but in reality I am not always faithful to him. My security is not based on my faithfulness to Jesus, thank God! No, my security is based on Jesus's faithfulness to me that he will never break his promise.

So, I cannot agree with Perseverance of the Saints.

There is more than just two views.

 

[Benjamin]

Good post Benjamin, but there is one more view. I would not call myself an Arminian because I do not believe in Perseverance of the Saints, I hold to Preservation of the Saints which is quite different. I do not believe I will be saved because I am faithful to Jesus, I believe I will be saved because Jesus is faithful to me. Jesus will never cast out in any wise any who come to him in faith (John 6:37). I truly want to be faithful to Jesus, but in reality I am not always faithful to him. My security is not based on my faithfulness to Jesus, thank God! No, my security is based on Jesus's faithfulness to me that he will never break his promise.

So, I cannot agree with Perseverance of the Saints.

There is more than just two views.

I too hold to a form of preservation of the saints in that God will give a "true" believer everything he needs to presevere in the faith, freely. That is how I go about explaining the passages that seem to suggest one can fall away, they are a genuine warning that a "true" believer will heed to in fear (love) of the truth so that they will continue to focus on faith and continue to examine himself thereby "preservation" is given by God, our Father for those who truly believe. (2Cor 13:5) Much like when a new believer begins to fear that he is falling short of being perfect enough to deserve God's love. (Rom 8:15) Or I guess one could just go about thinking he has been pre-destined, but that doesn't seem to be very motivating to me to keep me in the faith. Actually, it seems to suggest my faith is not my own and I have no choice in the matter therefore offers an excuse. I don't see the logic of the need in preserving that (faith) which has supposedly been divinely pre-determined.

 

[Van]

Apparently post #30 did not honestly, accurately or intelligently present Arminian theology. All I can say is I gave it a shot.

Did not see any response to these questions:

1) Exactly what does "incorporated in Christ by true faith" mean? Arminians believe we are born again when we put our faith in Christ. They affirm when we believe we are united with Christ. But they are vague on the mechanism of becoming united, "incorporated in Christ by true faith". It appears they think a person becomes united "automatically" and seem not to address the view that those whose faith God credits as righteousness, are united with Christ by His supernatural act of transferring us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of the Son.

2) Exactly what does being a "partaker of the Spirit" mean? Do we become partakers of the Spirit when we learn from the gospel, or only when we are sealed in Christ?

 

[Winman]

I too hold to a form of preservation of the saints in that God will give a "true" believer everything he needs to presevere in the faith, freely. That is how I go about explaining the passages that seem to suggest one can fall away, they are a genuine warning that a "true" believer will heed to in fear (love) of the truth so that they will continue to focus on faith and continue to examine himself thereby "preservation" is given by God, our Father for those who truly believe. (2Cor 13:5) Much like when a new believer begins to fear that he is falling short of being perfect enough to deserve God's love. (Rom 8:15) Or I guess one could just go about thinking he has been pre-destined, but that doesn't seem to be very motivating to me to keep me in the faith. Actually, it seems to suggest my faith is not my own and I have no choice in the matter therefore offers an excuse. I don't see the logic of the need in preserving that (faith) which has supposedly been divinely pre-determined.

I look at it simply as we are a new creature, born again, and cannot go back. You cannot become "unborn again". We are indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit who will never leave us.

Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

The scriptures say Jesus has said he will never leave us nor forsake us, and this is what I believe.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thanks for the Link, HOS. It appears to be an earnest attempt to put forth Arminianism with a minimum of vague assertions that can mean very different things.

It is not really "vague"....as it is a link to an entire entourage of individuals whose sole purpose is to define and defend the Arm POV. There are literally hundreds of articles if one wants to follow any links.

1. Arminians believe Christ died for all mankind, not just for the elect.

Yes

2. Arminians believe in Total Spiritual Inability, but that God has overridden the inability with prevenient grace.

Yes

3. Arminians believe the grace of God's call through the gospel is resistible, so we feel the tug (i.e. Christ high and lifted up draws all men) but can reject it.

Again....Yes

It appears they think a person becomes united "automatically" and seem not to address the view that those whose faith God credits as righteousness, are united with Christ by His supernatural act of transferring us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of the Son.

I do not mean to be snide, or short, but, what the.... what does that Mean? and how does it differ from Arminianism???

5. Arminians believe our individual election for salvation is conditioned on our autonomous faith in Christ.

Yes.

The article did not seem to address whether that election was God's before creation, or the person choosing to believe somehow becoming elect when automatically "incorporated" in Christ.

What does this mean??? No, I assume it does not address this...not in particular...

6. Arminians believe believers who have been "incorporated" into Christ are predestined to "final salvation." How that fits with the possibility of loss of salvation seems unclear.

Yes, and it is somewhat faillingly, and intentionally un-clear, as they simply were non-commital on the issue.

7. Arminians either take no position (i.e possible loss of salvation is not denied) or they believe salvation can be lost by the individual's choice to not persevere in the faith.

Yes, they are totally non-committed sissies on that doctrine....see my post where I likened it to a politician taking both sides of the issue simultaneously...it is rather weak...and I have always disliked it.

8. Arminians reject penal substitution (code for limited atonement) but affirm penal satisfaction, explained as substitutionary atonement.

Yes

9. Arminians believe God knows the future exhaustively and are willing to ban anyone from their midst that does not agree.

Yes, harshly put, but not technically incorrect.

10. Arminians believe God either causes or allows all things, but does not predestine all things. Therefore humans make autonomous decisions, affirming our culpability for our sins.

Yes, except for the bolded....you apparently have a particular point of view of what the term "predestine" must mean....it obviously differs from what you believe Arminians might support. No Arminian denies some form of "predestination", but, how precisely that might be defined is, limited at best....I am a Molinist, (for instance) and I tend to take a certain point of view about terms like ("election" and "predestination") and yet, although my view would be somewhat minority within the category of "Arminians" they do not dismiss my view as anathema or unacceptable within that category....and, strictly-speaking, there is no affirmative statement which they hold which I definitively disagree with...Therefore, I am comfortable enough with the term "Arminian"...even though some of the Particulars about Soteriology, not specifically addressed, are somewhat different than that which the average Arm. probably holds. It is a broad enough tent to encompass all of them.

In summary, close but no cigar.

Close enough for hand-grenades, anyway, and that's probably as good as it gets...How smart do you think we (as humans) are?
When I am Universally recognized as the World's fore-most authority on ALL matters of Soteriology....as I no doubt should be... I will at least recognize that there are a lot of things, quite frankly, I haven't a clue about...as God's plan and mystery are far beyond mortal me. :thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Not sure why you would lump me in with drfuss. I said accusations that Arminians teach one can lose is a strawman. Drfuss "boldly" contnued on "giving his biased interpretation" of Arminian doctrine to present they teach one can lose his salvation; IOW's he continued on presenting the strawman. So what else is new!

I won't say I have never heard an Arminian blatantly say one could lose his salvation anymore than I would say I never heard a Calvinist blatantly blame his immoral actions on being pre-determined to do so while assigning evil to God, and to to suggest either preach such a doctrine would be equally misrepresentative of the other's view and based on a strawman interpretation.


I wouldn't bother to try to explain the Arminian position here, on a board such as this, because it is too deep and the opponents aren't rational enough debaters to even begin to let valid points get established. It would be a complete waste of my time.


I will tell you this: In a nut shell the most accurate short explanation to what an Arminian beliefs add up to is that "if one turns from the faith" he was not a "true" believer in the first place. It is extremely very rare that I would find an credible Arminian that would disagree with that statement. Matter of fact I have been close personal friends with a Methodist Bishop for 20 years who oversees over 40 churches and we have discussed this very matter. He has told me that is what he believes and that he would take issue with a church teaching otherwise because it would amount to a doctrine of works based salvation and not of grace.


So if you all want to continue on with your strawman presentations go right on ahead because to me it just shows the opponent's ignorances and biases in the matter. It is even apparent that many of those who call themselves "non-cals" have bought into the rhetoric and this has much to with why many will not own the system, they don't want to be associated with the rhetoric and fail to recognize the fallacy, therefore it allow those who use it to get away with the use of it. I’m not here to proselytize and correct a bunch of obnoxious ignoramuses on the subject who ignore simple ethical rules of debate; I've got better things to do with my time than continue wasting it on this board and that is becoming more apparent all the time.

HoS is the only one I see here that is accurately, honestly, and intelligently presenting the view and seems to understand the big picture that is going on here in the minds of those who oppose it.

The Remonstrants clearly reject the notion that the teaching directly consists of that a true believer can fall away and says they could not in good conscience teach such a thing as it would neglect grace and the subject needs to be more fully determined from out of the scripture. Thus, I would suggest two options of remain for those who would continue to present such a strawman: 1) they have poor comprehension skills or 2) they are being disingenuous when they present the view of the other; hence are presenting a strawman. And, I have no intersts in getting into a debate or discussion with anyone who projects either or both of those qualities at the onset.

That is what one Methodist bishop believes, and Classical Arminianism would allow for it, but Wesleyan Arminians have not viewed it that way, and neither have General Baptists.

 

[Benjamin]

That is what one Methodist bishop believes, and Classical Arminianism would allow for it, but Wesleyan Arminians have not viewed it that way, and neither have General Baptists.

Says you. I suggest rather than continuing in the very strawman in the manner I just finished spelling out it better to educate yourself with the facts.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4746357&ct=5571239

Though perhaps the most popular publication John Wesley produced during his lifetime was called “The Arminian,” he sharply disagreed with Arminius on one point. Arminius had concluded that if a person had fallen from grace and into a state of spiritual death after having had an experience of conversion (whether that was understood to have occurred through baptism or to be heightened or awakened in a personal experience or affirmation later in life) there was no further hope for salvation. Wesley rejected this. Both experience and scripture told him otherwise. He addressed this at greatest length in his sermon, “A Call to Backsliders.”

In this sermon Wesley tackles the Arminian argument on the grounds of both scripture and experience.

Wesley notes that the penalty of eternal separation from God with no hope of return applies in scripture only in two cases—either, as in Hebrews 6 and 10, to persons who willfully, publically and explicitly reject Jesus as Savior after having confessed him, or, as in the gospels, to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by declaring that the works of Jesus were the works of the Evil one. He then turns the question to his hearers: “Now, which of you has thus fallen away? Which of you has thus ‘crucified the Son of God afresh?’ Not one: Nor has one of you thus ‘put him to an open shame.’" The penalty of there being no more sacrifice for sins thus cannot apply to the vast majority of those who have indeed fallen into spiritual decline, and perhaps close to or even into spiritual death, but have not in fact committed these atrocities.

I said that in a nut shell which you just sorrifully attempted to refute that, “Arminian beliefs add up to is that "if one turns from the faith" he was not a "true" believer in the first place.”

I’m afraid my statement has been shown to hold true from the very mouth of Wesley and your supposed refutation based on your word reveals your ignorant interpretation and lack of depth into the subject. It has once again been shown to amount to a strawman that is merely supported by your baseless say so and efforts to continue in what I just layed out as a fallacy in debate that I am not interested in persuing. You must have missed my points of the problems with such attempts to debate with people that just want to mindlessly argue.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Says you. I suggest rather than continuing in the very strawman in the manner I just finished spelling out it better to educate yourself with the facts.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4746357&ct=5571239




I said that in a nut shell which you just sorrifully attempted to refute that, “Arminian beliefs add up to is that "if one turns from the faith" he was not a "true" believer in the first place.”

I’m afraid my statement has been shown to hold true from the very mouth of Wesley and your supposed refutation based on your word reveals your ignorant interpretation and lack of depth into the subject. It has once again been shown to amount to a strawman that is merely supported by your baseless say so and efforts to continue in what I just layed out as a fallacy in debate that I am not interested in persuing. You must have missed my points of the problems with such attempts to debate with people that just want to mindlessly argue.

Oh, my, wouldn't you just know that I would stumble onto another ignorant person who thinks he knows it all but actually knows very little, and then tries to cover that up with insults.

I have been a United Methodist; further, church history and theology have been passionate areas of study for me since the mid-seventies. I can assure you that I have a wealth of informative sources that refute anything that you have written above. You are simply wrong. General Baptist Arminianism and Wesleyan Armininianism both hold that one can lose salvation after truly being spiritually reborn. I have an article detailing with the differences between an early Baptist Armininian, an English "new Arminian, or "Radical Arminian", and Jacobus Arminius, the founder, if you will, of the movement. This article by itself proves that you are clueless.

So, your snotty insults aside, I will not waste my time trying to discuss anything with an ignorant know-it-all who wishes to engage in personal insults; I've had enough of that.

The reason it is so difficult to have an engaging debate with people here is that there are too many like you.

Also, perhaps it is you who should learn to read and acknowledge: The article you posted which quotes Mr. Wesley shows that he agrees with me and not with you in your interpretation.

I wasn't going to post this, but I just love proving the arrogant wrong: http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html...0of%20Arminian%20Soteriology%20(Pinson)_1.pdf

 

[Benjamin]

Oh, my, wouldn't you just know that I would stumble onto another ignorant person who thinks he knows it all but actually knows very little, and then tries to cover that up with insults.

I have been a United Methodist; further, church history and theology have been passionate areas of study for me since the mid-seventies. I can assure you that I have a wealth of informative sources that refute anything that you have written above. You are simply wrong. General Baptist Arminianism and Wesleyan Armininianism both hold that one can lose salvation after truly being spiritually reborn. I have an article detailing with the differences between an early Baptist Armininian, an English "new Arminian, or "Radical Arminian", and Jacobus Arminius, the founder, if you will, of the movement. This article by itself proves that you are clueless.

So, your snotty insults aside, I will not waste my time trying to discuss anything with an ignorant know-it-all who wishes to engage in personal insults; I've had enough of that.

The reason it is so difficult to have an engaging debate with people here is that there are too many like you.

Also, perhaps it is you who should learn to read and acknowledge: The article you posted which quotes Mr. Wesley shows that he agrees with me and not with you in your interpretation.

I wasn't going to post this, but I just love proving the arrogant wrong: http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fevangelicalarminians.org%2Ffiles%2FThe%2520Diversity%2520of%2520Arminian%2520Soteriology%2520%28Pinson%29_1.pdf

A wealth of sources that are in disagreement with the UMC official position are supposed to refute what they say they themselves believe on the matter?! Do you know what that is called??? Are you kidding me?! You obviously continue to miss the point of objection to others resorting to present a strawman and if you can’t understand that you brought the matter to a head because while doing so you gave nothing but a rhetorical baseless response continuing with a strawman and based simply on your word I can’t help you.

Sorry if you feel insulted but “ignorance” shouldn’t always be taken as an insult and in this case the term could be taken as a statement of fact especially when presented with a valid argument which shows the view of Wesleyan Arminianism which is officially held by the UMC on the matter which in fact did clearly support my statement.

P.S. It is of no surprise you would disregard the whole in depth explanation and interpret it as a confession of a belief that one can lose their salvation while ignoring the “establishment of true faith issues” and the clear words of Wesley, “Now, which of you has thus fallen away? Which of you has thus ‘crucified the Son of God afresh?’ Not one.”

I see no point in continuing to explain it to you as I see where it is heading.