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

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

This is what you said in the first post I responded to: "Arminian beliefs add up to is that "if one turns from the faith" he was not a "true" believer in the first place." That's what the OSAS crowd believes, not Wesleyan Arminians, and not Wesley. If you cannot discern that from the man's own words, then you may be beyond help. The only way that Arminian beliefs could add up to what you are claiming is if 2+2 equals 5. Further, the article I posted a link to shows what Arminians believed centuries ago and still believe -- Baptist and non-Baptist Arminians. I know that the article was long; did you read it? Once again, it's the 1-point Calvinists, the OSAS crowd that believes that if a professed believer turns away, that person was never really saved in the first place. Mr. Wesley did not believe that, the General Baptists did not and do not believe it to this day, and the Wesleyan Arminians do not believe it. Mr. Wesley's own words show that he did not believe it. If you get that he did out of the quotes you provided, you simply have not studied him enough, or you are not comprehending what he is saying. The same is true about the UMC position; it does not agree with you -- you obviously do not understand or comprehend what it is saying. No Arminian I know of believes what you are claiming they do, and they have never believed it. Now I am not talking about Classical Arminians, as there was and is a diversity there. Some may believe like the OSAS people about this issue, but certainly the Wesleyan Arminians do not and never have -- that goes for United Methodists, Congregational Methodists, Nazarene and other Holiness bodies, the Salvation Army, and all kinds of Wesleyans. It also goes for the General Baptists and Free Will Baptists. I have moved in Arminian and non-Calvinist circles in years (and Calvinist, too), and I have extensively and thoroughly studied Arminian and other non-Calvinist theology, and I can assure you that Baptist and Wesleyan Arminians do not believe what you are claiming they do on this issue. That's what the OSAS folks believe, but not Baptist and Wesleyan Arminians.

Go thoroughly study UMC theology and Wesley's theology; you'll see that neither believe what you are claiming they do about this doctrine. Read carefully to catch also the nuances as well as what's obvious, and hopefully you will see how you are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they are saying.

I have sought to engage you in discussion in this post in a respectful way.

 

[Bro. James]

None of the above

What was the scriptural doctrine regarding salvation before the 16th century reformers? The Wesley Bros. were reforming Anglicized Rome. This is all reformation of reformation of apostasy.

Jesus said He would never leave Her nor forsake Her(His Church/Bride); and would lead Her in all Truth. All of this reforming is suggesting that Jesus is not able to do what He said.

Ninety something percent of Christendom so-called are following men or women.

The basic leaven is salvation by works or an admixture thereof-- salvation by works and infant baptism. Jon Chauvin and Jacobus Arminius were pedobaptists. They got it from their Mother. New Testament Churches do not baptize their infants. This is a pivotal point.

Salvation is of the Lord, and He knows them that are His and is able to keep them in Spirit and Truth--just as He promised.

Even so come, Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro James

 

[Van]

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.

I was referring to the linked article, and not to stuff I did not read on the associated website.

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.

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

My view is we are "incorporated into Christ" by God spiritually transferring us from our separated from God sinful state in Adam, to the Kingdom of the Son when God puts us spiritually in Christ And God takes this action based on crediting our faith as righteousness.

If you do not agree with this view on how we are incorporated, then say you disagree and clearly state how you believe we are "incorporated."

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.

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

It means or asks the question: when does God elect us individually, before creation or during our lifetime. And the second question is: Are we elected when God credits our faith and puts us in Christ, or are we elected automatically when we put ourselves 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.

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

To be unclear, they would have said might be predestined to final salvation, but to state that as a certainty, then they are simply taking both sides.

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.

Agreed!

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.

HOS, you are making this too hard. The article said Arminians (not addressing your Molinist views) do not believe we are predestined to believe. Therefore, God does not predestine everything. "Predestination" can refer to a doctrine such as the Calvinist view, but when I use the word, I simply mean what the word means which is for God to decide to cause something to occur in the future. Thus God does not cause us to believe, because I agree with the Arminians, God did not predestine us to believe. So God predestines some things, like believers placed spiritually in Christ are then predestined to be "conformed to the image of His Son."

Close enough for hand-grenades, anyway, and that's probably as good as it gets...How smart do you think we (as humans) are?

Smart enough to know not to buy a pig in a poke. Doctrines that do not fit with all scripture are sold on the false appeal to mystery, rather than fix the doctrine so it fits with all scripture.

 

[Benjamin]

This is what you said in the first post I responded to: "Arminian beliefs add up to is that "if one turns from the faith" he was not a "true" believer in the first place." That's what the OSAS crowd believes, not Wesleyan Arminians, and not Wesley. If you cannot discern that from the man's own words, then you may be beyond help. The only way that Arminian beliefs could add up to what you are claiming is if 2+2 equals 5. Further, the article I posted a link to shows what Arminians believed centuries ago and still believe -- Baptist and non-Baptist Arminians. I know that the article was long; did you read it? Once again, it's the 1-point Calvinists, the OSAS crowd that believes that if a professed believer turns away, that person was never really saved in the first place. Mr. Wesley did not believe that, the General Baptists did not and do not believe it to this day, and the Wesleyan Arminians do not believe it. Mr. Wesley's own words show that he did not believe it. If you get that he did out of the quotes you provided, you simply have not studied him enough, or you are not comprehending what he is saying. The same is true about the UMC position; it does not agree with you -- you obviously do not understand or comprehend what it is saying. No Arminian I know of believes what you are claiming they do, and they have never believed it. Now I am not talking about Classical Arminians, as there was and is a diversity there. Some may believe like the OSAS people about this issue, but certainly the Wesleyan Arminians do not and never have -- that goes for United Methodists, Congregational Methodists, Nazarene and other Holiness bodies, the Salvation Army, and all kinds of Wesleyans. It also goes for the General Baptists and Free Will Baptists. I have moved in Arminian and non-Calvinist circles in years (and Calvinist, too), and I have extensively and thoroughly studied Arminian and other non-Calvinist theology, and I can assure you that Baptist and Wesleyan Arminians do not believe what you are claiming they do on this issue. That's what the OSAS folks believe, but not Baptist and Wesleyan Arminians.

Go thoroughly study UMC theology and Wesley's theology; you'll see that neither believe what you are claiming they do about this doctrine. Read carefully to catch also the nuances as well as what's obvious, and hopefully you will see how you are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they are saying.

I have sought to engage you in discussion in this post in a respectful way.

There is a difference major between not buying into the doctrine of OSAS, which is made to fit to support Determinism/Calvinism doctrines, and that of believing and/or preaching one can loss his salvation once established. The premise of either/or is a false dilemma designed to form the genesis of yet another strawman while trying to maintain the first.

I comprehend the words of Wesley just fine and I form my opinions of his work based off my discernment of "his" words rather than the biased commentary of others. Since you don’t know me do you form your opinion of the depth of my knowledge of Wesley's doctrines from your psychic abilities, is it possibly that you’ve just traveled in circles that know no other interpretations exist for so long you just presume such, or could it be merely a simpleminded tactic to form a rhetorical ploy against your opponent and try to discount his credibility while supposedly building up your own?

I know what I said and where I got information from and I backed it up with the UMC’s own explanation and Wesley’s words. I also presented what the Remonstrants clearly said about the issue.

Now to address the only thing you have submitted to presumably back your claim; I am aware of your “source” and what you have presented is a biased essay from Pinson who is a staunch critic of Wesley and you are claiming his opinions represent Wesley’s true belief. (Here we see the roots for your strawman.) I have observed Pinson making a multitude of accusations against Wesley such as repeated claims that he disingenuously took his work from other theologians, didn’t name his sources and has betrayed about everyone he was ever associated with along the way. Pinson seems to have made it one of his life’s missions to take all the history of Wesley he can find and to twist it to discount the man, he calls him a semi-pelagian and much more. And this is source you use to represent Wesley’s view against his own words and that of the church that hold to his doctrines?! Pathetic example of an attempt to support the strawman you unsubstantially came into this discussion claiming and have now after being called on it continue in desperation to support your long held false beliefs!

You are merely supporting my position through establishing that you have serious credibility issues by using those types of sources. (Busted! using an "interested party" source ) Simply, you have tried to refute the issue of presenting a strawman through the use of an extremely biased source to support your misrepresentative claim concerning your opposition’s belief. You obviously lack understanding of how to support your view without resorting to a purely fallacious argument. After destroying your own credibility you resort to claiming such things as that no Arminian you know believes what I have stated (a valueless statement considering my personal experiences to the contrary) and have merely continued to toss out a load of baseless claims citing your expertise to support them while you mix in a bunch of rhetoric about how I should study more.

I suspect one of the main problems you have here is that you have continued to fail to recognize the true value of your strawman and have heard it repeated so often by your proponents that you believe it to true based on repetition rather than validity; maybe an issue of pride? It seems you don’t know where to begin to substantiate your claims and have nothing more to rely on than clearly rhetorical claims that give no valid reason to believe what you have presented are true.

You rhetorically add that you hope “I” will see “how I am misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they are saying” yet I have clearly demonstrated that you have presented nothing more than an extremely biased source by which you obtain and support “your” interpretation, thereby maybe now you can see “how” invalid your argument is based on your fallacious reasoning?

You don’t seem to realize that I recognize and look for valid reasoning in my opponent’s arguments and you have given me nothing but a continuation of fallaciously trying to support your opening strawman, and maybe a few laughs along the way (yes, that last part was rhetoric back at you ). Like I said, I’m really not interested in continuing to pursue a baseless ignorant argument that amounts to nothing more than a motivated attempt on your part to try to support the obvious misguided strawman which you blatantly began with a baseless statement right after my objection to those very types of fallacious tactics was presented.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is a difference major between not buying into the doctrine of OSAS, which is made to fit to support Determinism/Calvinism doctrines, and that of believing and/or preaching one can loss his salvation once established. The premise of either/or is a false dilemma designed to form the genesis of yet another strawman while trying to maintain the first.

I comprehend the words of Wesley just fine and I form my opinions of his work based off my discernment of "his" words rather than the biased commentary of others. Since you don’t know me do you form your opinion of the depth of my knowledge of Wesley's doctrines from your psychic abilities, is it possibly that you’ve just traveled in circles that know no other interpretations exist for so long you just presume such, or could it be merely a simpleminded tactic to form a rhetorical ploy against your opponent and try to discount his credibility while supposedly building up your own?

I know what I said and where I got information from and I backed it up with the UMC’s own explanation and Wesley’s words. I also presented what the Remonstrants clearly said about the issue.

Now to address the only thing you have submitted to presumably back your claim; I am aware of your “source” and what you have presented is a biased essay from Pinson who is a staunch critic of Wesley and you are claiming his opinions represent Wesley’s true belief. (Here we see the roots for your strawman.) I have observed Pinson making a multitude of accusations against Wesley such as repeated claims that he disingenuously took his work from other theologians, didn’t name his sources and has betrayed about everyone he was ever associated with along the way. Pinson seems to have made it one of his life’s missions to take all the history of Wesley he can find and to twist it to discount the man, he calls him a semi-pelagian and much more. And this is source you use to represent Wesley’s view against his own words and that of the church that hold to his doctrines?! Pathetic example of an attempt to support the strawman you unsubstantially came into this discussion claiming and have now after being called on it continue in desperation to support your long held false beliefs!

You are merely supporting my position through establishing that you have serious credibility issues by using those types of sources. (Busted! using an "interested party" source ) Simply, you have tried to refute the issue of presenting a strawman through the use of an extremely biased source to support your misrepresentative claim concerning your opposition’s belief. You obviously lack understanding of how to support your view without resorting to a purely fallacious argument. After destroying your own credibility you resort to claiming such things as that no Arminian you know believes what I have stated (a valueless statement considering my personal experiences to the contrary) and have merely continued to toss out a load of baseless claims citing your expertise to support them while you mix in a bunch of rhetoric about how I should study more.

I suspect one of the main problems you have here is that you have continued to fail to recognize the true value of your strawman and have heard it repeated so often by your proponents that you believe it to true based on repetition rather than validity; maybe an issue of pride? It seems you don’t know where to begin to substantiate your claims and have nothing more to rely on than clearly rhetorical claims that give no valid reason to believe what you have presented are true.

You rhetorically add that you hope “I” will see “how I am misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they are saying” yet I have clearly demonstrated that you have presented nothing more than an extremely biased source by which you obtain and support “your” interpretation, thereby maybe now you can see “how” invalid your argument is based on your fallacious reasoning?

You don’t seem to realize that I recognize and look for valid reasoning in my opponent’s arguments and you have given me nothing but a continuation of fallaciously trying to support your opening strawman, and maybe a few laughs along the way (yes, that last part was rhetoric back at you ). Like I said, I’m really not interested in continuing to pursue a baseless ignorant argument that amounts to nothing more than a motivated attempt on your part to try to support the obvious misguided strawman which you blatantly began with a baseless statement right after my objection to those very types of fallacious tactics was presented.

When you have studied as much, as long, and as widely as I have, then you might be sufficiently armed to engage me in meaningful debate. Until then, sonny boy, you need to do a lot more studying and sharpening your comprehension skills.

The point of my posting the article link was not to show what the author thought of Wesley; it was to show what two early English Arminians believed -- one a Baptist and one a non-Baptist; these two men were representative of wider Arminian beliefs, all of which refute what you have said. You agree with the OSAS crowd; Arminians do not. Those are the facts which you cannot change. Your problem is that the UMC's own explanation and Wesley's own words do not back you up; they refute you. What is pathetic is that you try to put words into Wesley's mouth based on your misunderstanding of Arminianism and misrepresentation of Wesley himself. It is your credibility that is destroyed because you show that you know almost nothing about Arminianism. To try to maintain that Arminianism, particularly that of the General Baptists and Wesleyans, believes that if a professed Christian turns away then that one was never really saved in the first place, is the height of ignorance and stupidity.

Here is a statement from the General Association of General Baptists; it goes right along with what Thomas Grantham, the early English General Baptist in the article believed, and it refutes what you claim. It is what General Baptists have believed for centuries, and also what Wesleyans have believed for centuries:

"V. ASSURANCE AND ENDURANCE
We believe that those who abide in Christ have the assurance of salvation. However, we believe that the Christian retains his freedom of choice; therefore, it is possible for him to turn away from God and be finally lost."

Also, here is a statement from the National Association of Free Will Baptists, which also refutes you:

"Perseverance – We believe that there are strong grounds to hope that the saved will persevere unto the end and be saved because of the power of divine grace pledged for their support. We believe that any saved person who has sinned (whether we call him a backslider or sinner), but has a desire to repent, may do so and be restored to God’s favor and fellowship. Since man, however, continues to have free choice, it is possible because of temptations and the weakness of human flesh for him to fall into the practice of sin and to make shipwreck of his faith and be lost."

This is exactly what Thomas Grantham, early English General Baptist, believed and taught.

 

[Benjamin]

When you have studied as much, as long, and as widely as I have, then you might be sufficiently armed to engage me in meaningful debate. Until then, sonny boy, you need to do a lot more studying and sharpening your comprehension skills.

More rhetoric that you continue to recognize to fail does not present validity to your fallicious arguments. Yeah, okay, concerniing your logic, I and know of OSAS preaching Baptist Calvinist on the matters of determinism who take it to its conclusion without exception (no free will) so by your reasoning this then is the accurate belief of all Calvinist who believe on determinism, correct?

The confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches, specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.) -- most recently seen online here.

Article XXVI of the Gospel Standard articles: "We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God."

Article XXXIII of the Gospel Standard articles: "Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption."

Now, I could go to use your tactics and say I never met a Calvinist that holds to the TULIP, in which all points are vitally dependent on determinism, that wouldn’t believe in the above; they all do you need to study more.

Well, in my four decades of study of systematic theology and debate of same, I have never come across anyone with the unique combination of arrogance and ignorance that is you.

Well, I have met many that use the typical ignorant illogical methods to support their arguments that you do, maybe that's what makes me so unique in your eyes, I could double your rhetorical replies anytime I wish but that is not my desire or the ethical goal in debate and you have missed that point all along...


Old man, you have resorted to yet another ignorant fallacy of pulling out one sect and using an interpretation of it to present a strawman that all Arminians believe in such a manner that a true believer could lose their salvation. Using your reasoning all Calvinist/Determinist must believe in having no responsibility or accountability for their actions at any time in their life to make a true decision for Christ as they believe they are incapable of having the ability to do so, therefore they preach salvation is not of faith but of determinate action from God.

I tire of your desperate fallacious attempts to hold to your strawman. I have neither the time nor desire to educate an old DoG in a new trick of logical reasoning to support his habitual false claims. I have pointed put your strawman, fallacies along the way, consistent rhetoric, and presented the views of the Arminians I was talking about by their own words and you have not even begun to logically refuted my statement. In the meantime you have given a perfect example of the “bunch of obnoxious ignoramuses on the subject who ignore simple ethical rules of debate;” that I was referring to when I finished that sentence with, “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.” My job here is done.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

More rhetoric that you continue to recognize to fail does not present validity to your fallicious arguments. Yeah, okay, concerniing your logic, I and know of OSAS preaching Baptist Calvinist on the matters of determinism who take it to its conclusion without exception (no free will) so by your reasoning this then is the accurate belief of all Calvinist who believe on determinism, correct?

The confessional articles of the Gospel Standard (Baptist) Churches, specifically: Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies, (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.) -- most recently seen online here.

Article XXVI of the Gospel Standard articles: "We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God."

Article XXXIII of the Gospel Standard articles: "Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption."

Now, I could go to use your tactics and say I never met a Calvinist that holds to the TULIP, in which all points are vitally dependent on determinism, that wouldn’t believe in the above; they all do you need to study more.


Well, I have met many that use the typical ignorant illogical methods to support their arguments that you do, maybe that's what makes me so unique in your eyes, I could double your rhetorical replies anytime I wish but that is not my desire or the ethical goal in debate and you have missed that point all along...


Old man, you have resorted to yet another ignorant fallacy of pulling out one sect and using an interpretation of it to present a strawman that all Arminians believe in such a manner that a true believer could lose their salvation. Using your reasoning all Calvinist/Determinist must believe in having no responsibility or accountability for their actions at any time in their life to make a true decision for Christ as they believe they are incapable of having the ability to do so, therefore they preach salvation is not of faith but of determinate action from God.

I tire of your desperate fallacious attempts to hold to your strawman. I have neither the time nor desire to educate an old DoG in a new trick of logical reasoning to support his habitual false claims. I have pointed put your strawman, fallacies along the way, consistent rhetoric, and presented the views of the Arminians I was talking about by their own words and you have not even begun to logically refuted my statement. In the meantime you have given a perfect example of the “bunch of obnoxious ignoramuses on the subject who ignore simple ethical rules of debate;” that I was referring to when I finished that sentence with, “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.” My job here is done.

Come back in maybe twenty years when you have had sufficient study, and maybe you will be armed well enough to carry on an intelligent and sufficiently knowledgeable debate. Still, if your comprehension skills have not sharpened in that time, you will still be deficient in the abililty to understand that Baptist Arminian and Wesleyan Arminian statements of faith and expositions of doctrine totally refute your one-point Calvinist stance.

Anyone with a grain of comprehension can read any source you posted, as well as those I posted, or any others, and see that all of it clearly refutes your OSAS, one-point Calvinism. Now your views could be encompassed by Classical Aminianism, but not by any other kind of Arminianism -- General Baptist, Free Will Baptist, or Wesleyan.

Now, sonny boy, off to school with you!

 

[Bro. James]

A short kibbitz:

Shall we all enroll in Humility 101?

Judge not least ye also be judged. We will all be judged by the Book--the wood, hay and stubble will not survive--all of our theological prittle prattle will not hold up, regardless of our pedigrees. A child can understand the kingdom of God, without fifteen letter words and twenty-five word sentences.(I use a lot of dashes instead of periods.)

There are some saved, yet so as by fire. See I Cor. 3. Some will get a "well done" and many crowns.

The real question: Will our faith and practive hold up at the Bema Seat?

Peace, even if we do not agree.

The Lord knows them that are His.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Yeshua1]

just 2 questions regarding this!

Do some or all arminians hold to corporate election, as in the Gospel was elected, or jesus was beforehand by God?

Don't majority of even arms reject loss of salvation?

 

[Benjamin]

Shall we all enroll in Humility 101?


Peace, even if we do not agree.

The sheep pretends the wolf will never come, but the SHEEPDOG lives for that day.

 

[Van]

just 2 questions regarding this!

Do some or all arminians hold to corporate election, as in the Gospel was elected, or jesus was beforehand by God?

Don't majority of even arms reject loss of salvation?

Arminians appear to be divided on this, with the Classical Arminians holding that Ephesians 1:4 refers to an individual election of foreseen believers. But a significant branch, and I do not know what they call themselves, believes election to salvation is corporate, therefore when a person believes, they enter Christ automatically and are therefore part of the corporately elected body of Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry, got to close this one down, too many infractions. Please keep it clean guys and don't get personal.