Arminian Aberrations

[webdog]

I receive an infraction from you for this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1793132#post1793132

And webdog receives a thumbs up from you for that.

Yes...because its a real "attack" to tell you guys to actually learn what the atonement is and not redefine it to fit your flower.

 

[webdog]

This is a classic example of an attack...

only in your world...its a plea to get it right for once...but of course to not believe in the "L" (like many calvinists do) defaulting one to an unsaved universalist as EWF did cannot be an attack, right? The nerve to call out Skandelon's bias!

 

[webdog]

Well then he needs to explain his position much better than he has done....BTW, I resent being called ignorant. Thats a sure way to get me to resent you personally for such commentary.

Come on, dont play the martyr. To default one to universalism is ignorance in regards to the atonement. Its hypocricy to claim offense when you had no problem naming him (and by extension myself) as unsaved universalists...because there are no true believers who are unie's...but we both know that already.

 

[Skandelon]

I receive an infraction from you for this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1793132#post1793132

And webdog receives a thumbs up from you for that.

In the post you received an infraction you called P4T a liar, which is something we have been told not to allow. It was reported and I snipped it and politely gave you a warning, which didn't even take any points.

Here Webdog refers to your view as 'ignorant' which yes can come across a bit too harsh, but it simply means 'uninformed' and it wasn't directed to you personally, but to your express position. Plus, and this is the BIG one. This post was never reported.

Contrary to what you may think, Moderators don't scroll around reading every thread to find infractions. As stated in the rules you are called to police yourself and edit your own offenses. A moderator is a last resort who is to be called in when a dispute of the rules can't be resolved. Thus, we typically only edit posts that are reported as an offense. This allows a host of other Moderators to see and respond to the report and understand why an edit was made, if it is needed.

Feel free to report Webdogs post and see if any of the mods think it is worthy of edit. I personally do not because he did refer to your position not the individual.

 

[Skandelon]

This is bull.
Quantam said that the atonement is universally APPLICABLE. It applies to all people. This means that all people have the atonement applied to them therefore all people are saved.

That is universalism. He doesn't really believe that is my guess, but it is what he said.
The Calvinists you list here, like Hodge, express what I believe. That the atonement is sufficient to save every person in the history of the world and a trillion worlds of sinners like it.

Oh Really?

Let's look as C. Hodges teaching on the subject, shall we:

There is no grace in accepting a pecuniary satisfaction. It cannot be refused. It ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the case of judicial satisfaction. If a substitute be provided and accepted it is a matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it may never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those who hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice. The application of its benefits is determined by the covenant between the Father and the Son. Those for whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins. It is the stipulations of the covenant which forbid such a result. Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed, it may be sincerely offered to all men with the assurance that if they believe it shall accrue to their salvation. His work being specially designed for the salvation of his own people, renders, through the conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly consistent with its being made the ground of the general offer of the gospel. Lutherans and Reformed agree entirely, as before stated, in their views of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, and consequently, so far as that point is concerned, there is the same foundation for the general offer of the gospel according to either scheme. What the Reformed or Augustinians hold about election does not affect the nature of the atonement. That remains the same whether designed for the elect or for all mankind. It does not derive its nature from the secret purpose of God as to its application.

Did you follow that? The application, even for the elect of Calvinism, is through the condition of faith; thus if one believes, as Arminians do, that faith is a potentiality for anyone and everyone who hears the gospel (not just the preselected few), then the atonement can truly be seen a available and applicable for the whole world. In other words, its APPLIED through faith in both our systems. It's not applied sometime in the past, thus we can actually be in agreement regarding the nature of the atonement (has Hodge explains) without agreeing on other soteriological points or being universalists.

 

[kyredneck]

In the post you received an infraction you called P4T a liar, which is something we have been told not to allow. It was reported and I snipped it and politely gave you a warning, which didn't even take any points.

Here Webdog refers to your view as 'ignorant' which yes can come across a bit too harsh, but it simply means 'uninformed' and it wasn't directed to you personally, but to your express position. Plus, and this is the BIG one. This post was never reported.

Contrary to what you may think, Moderators don't scroll around reading every thread to find infractions. As stated in the rules you are called to police yourself and edit your own offenses. A moderator is a last resort who is to be called in when a dispute of the rules can't be resolved. Thus, we typically only edit posts that are reported as on offense. This allows a host of other Moderators to see and respond to the report and understand why an edit was made, if it is needed.

Feel free to report Webdogs post and see if any of the mods think it is worthy of edit. I personally do not because he did refer to your position not the individual.

For the record i did not call p4t a liar. I called his statement a lie.

Also for the record webdogs comment was not directed at me. That would be ewf. I am pointing out your seeming bias in this matter.

 

[preacher4truth]

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess it is allowed after all.


But it wasn't here, and the context supports "uninformed."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1718544#post1718544

 

[glfredrick]

Oh Really?

Let's look as C. Hodges teaching on the subject, shall we:

There is no grace in accepting a pecuniary satisfaction. It cannot be refused. It ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the case of judicial satisfaction. If a substitute be provided and accepted it is a matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it may never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those who hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice. The application of its benefits is determined by the covenant between the Father and the Son. Those for whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins. It is the stipulations of the covenant which forbid such a result. Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed, it may be sincerely offered to all men with the assurance that if they believe it shall accrue to their salvation. His work being specially designed for the salvation of his own people, renders, through the conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly consistent with its being made the ground of the general offer of the gospel. Lutherans and Reformed agree entirely, as before stated, in their views of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, and consequently, so far as that point is concerned, there is the same foundation for the general offer of the gospel according to either scheme. What the Reformed or Augustinians hold about election does not affect the nature of the atonement. That remains the same whether designed for the elect or for all mankind. It does not derive its nature from the secret purpose of God as to its application.

Did you follow that? The application, even for the elect of Calvinism, is through the condition of faith; thus if one believes, as Arminians do, that faith is a potentiality for anyone and everyone who hears the gospel (not just the preselected few), then the atonement can truly be seen a available and applicable for the whole world. In other words, its APPLIED through faith in both our systems. It's not applied sometime in the past, thus we can actually be in agreement regarding the nature of the atonement (has Hodge explains) without agreeing on other soteriological points or being universalists.

Give us page number and book from Hodge so we can read the rest of what he wrote.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't recall that I offered an "either-or" scenario for you.

You said, "We should discuss whether the 'gospel; was because 'we could not understand' or whether it is what it purports to be in Scripture -- the kerygma of 'good news' of what Christ has actually done."

As if those are mutually exclusive. They aren't. The gospel is the means of revealing the mystery (that which we need help to understand) of redemption to mankind AND the 'kerygma of good news of what Christ has actually done.'

No, I am not saying that the gospel is JUST a historical record. I AM, however, saying that the gospel is HISTORICAL. IT HAD TO HAPPEN in order for it to have any power.

Agreed.

When I suggest that you are involking Barth, what I mean is that Barth saw the "words" of Scripture taking power no matter if there was an actual historical event or not and you are now headed right down that road.

That suggests the gospel lies but still has power? I've not even hinted to believe anything like this. It honestly appears you are grasping as some other label to slap on me so you can feel better about not actually dealing with MY words.

You have taken the "kerygma" of the gospel and given THAT power instead of the actual gospel, which is the RECORDED HISTORICAL ACTIONS OF CHRIST. It is Christ that has the power and the recorded words of His actions only serves to point us to Him

And this is what I meant by a false dichotomy. You want to say one is powerful so the other one isn't. I say, and indeed the bible says, that both are powerful.

"The gospel is the power of God unto salvation." - Paul

"The words that is speak to you are spirit and life." - Jesus

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." - Heb. 4:12

" As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." - Jesus

If just words, they are of no worth

And who said they were JUST WORDS? And not based on powerful actual truths? Some dead liberal theologian? Well, then go dig him up and debate him, but I didn't say that. Debate me not your straw-man.

 

[Don]

This is bull.
Quantam said that the atonement is universally APPLICABLE. It applies to all people. This means that all people have the atonement applied to them therefore all people are saved.

That is universalism. He doesn't really believe that is my guess, but it is what he said.
The Calvinists you list here, like Hodge, express what I believe. That the atonement is sufficient to save every person in the history of the world and a trillion worlds of sinners like it.

I don't think so.

If it is it makes the word "applicable" synonymous with the word "available" which I think you already used in that sentence so the word "applicable" would be redundant.

Words matter. I don't think you are a universalist. But neither do I think that EWF was off in pointing out the inconsistency of the TULIP you provided.

When he was scolded by Skandelon, I thought it necessary to point out that his beef was perfectly legitimate.

If the atonement is applicable to all in some way different from being just "available" to all then universalism is true.

Words matter.

Words do matter, as does their usage. Look up synonyms for "available," and guess what you'll find? "Applicable."

The problem with the usage here is that you discount it because it doesn't fit with calvinistic limited atonement. "Available" does not mean "received" or "achieved," just as "applicable" does not mean "applied."

It may be universally applicable, but that doesn't mean it will be universally applied.

It's a classic paradox question: Is God's grace sufficient for all? If you say yes, then you're implying universalism; if you say no, you're implying God is limited and therefore not omnipotent.

I believe we all agree that the atonement will be applied to only those that believe and have faith.

 

[glfredrick]

You said, "We should discuss whether the 'gospel; was because 'we could not understand' or whether it is what it purports to be in Scripture -- the kerygma of 'good news' of what Christ has actually done."

As if those are mutually exclusive. They aren't. The gospel is the means of revealing the mystery (that which we need help to understand) of redemption to mankind AND the 'kerygma of good news of what Christ has actually done.'

The kerygma is not powerful because of its words. Therein you have equivocated the word "gospel" for what it represents -- the actions of Christ as recorded in a particular historical way.

Agreed. That suggests the gospel lies but still has power? I've not even hinted to believe anything like this. It honestly appears you are grasping as some other label to slap on me so you can feel better about not actually dealing with MY words.

The "gospel" cannot "lie" (except under your interpretation) because it is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history. Because you equivocate the word for the action (and indeed the word describes the action in a "short hand" sort of way) and make the word the verb instead of the action, you end up falling short of understanding why it has power.

Had Christ not been born, according to the Scriptures, lived, according to the Scriptures, ministered, according to the Scriptures, died, according to the Scriptures, raised from the dead, according to the Scriptures, and ascended unto the throne of God the Father, according to the Scriptures, the "euangellion" would be nothing, for the reason IT IS "good news", i.e., "the gospel" is BECAUSE of what Christ did.

And this is what I meant by a false dichotomy. You want to say one is powerful so the other one isn't. I say, and indeed the bible says, that both are powerful.

"The gospel is the power of God unto salvation." - Paul

"The words that is speak to you are spirit and life." - Jesus

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." - Heb. 4:12

" As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." - Jesus

And who said they were JUST WORDS? And not based on powerful actual truths? Some dead liberal theologian? Well, then go dig him up and debate him, but I didn't say that. Debate me not your straw-man.

They are, of course, not "just words." They are words that DESCRIBE GOD'S ACTION(S). It is the action that makes the words meaningful and powerful.

You have, in order to hold up your theological house of cards, endued the WORD "gospel" with power that it does not have unless or until Christ ACTUALLY DID what makes it "good news." That the writers of Scripture used the term "euengellion" to describe the completed actions of Christ is what makes the gospel salfic, not merely the fact that words are shared.

So, before accusing me of a false dichotomy, realize that you have equivocated an action with a word and given a word power that only the action carries. The word is powerful -- yes -- BECAUSE of the action that it represents, not merely because it is a particular word.

 

[Skandelon]

I find that you have no qualms whatsoever in responding to persons such as Luke and myself. You, however, leave without responding when someone who typically thumb's up your statements goes off the reservation. Just wondering why that is. Oh, wait, I know... Tacit agreement. It certainly is not for lack of words on your part.

I bet I've called out more of those in my own "camp" than you have those in yours...but whatever, you are going to see things the way you want to see them.

You know what you said. Why are you now backpeddling? As I recall, you were quite adamant that those who disagreed with Calvinism should see their stance as being anti-Calvinistic, I even asked you about it. I'll see if I can find the thread as it is now closed. I often delete closed threads from my cache of saved threads.

Just do a search for the word anti-Calvinism and find where I said that. You quoted me as if I said that and I didn't. You need to actually quote my words because you have proven yourself incapable of properly portraying what I've actually said. This is why I almost always go line by line through a post and quote the other poster verbatim. No one can accuse me of not responding to what has actually been said that way...or at least they can see for themselves what they think the intent is... that is why we have the quote feature. Use it, or just don't put words in other people's mouth.

For the most part, I only see what people are against around here.

Then you haven't been looking. Like I said before, I started a thread on the two views of Romans 9 where I present a very clear positive affirmation of what we believe Paul is teaching. You haven't responded.

I've started plenty positive threads about what we actually believe, but yes I've also started many pointing out the errors of Calvinistic teaching...there are just so many that it takes a lot of the time.

 

[quantumfaith]

Words do matter, as does their usage. Look up synonyms for "available," and guess what you'll find? "Applicable."

The problem with the usage here is that you discount it because it doesn't fit with calvinistic limited atonement. "Available" does not mean "received" or "achieved," just as "applicable" does not mean "applied."

It may be universally applicable, but that doesn't mean it will be universally applied.

It's a classic paradox question: Is God's grace sufficient for all? If you say yes, then you're implying universalism; if you say no, you're implying God is limited and therefore not omnipotent.

I believe we all agree that the atonement will be applied to only those that believe and have faith.

Thank you Don, I can only dream of being a competent rhetorician. I think it is pretty clear (and we ALL do it on both sides) we far too often look for semantic creases in order to beat our "opponents" over the head with minutia. Such is the unfortunate result of seemingly innate need to "systemitize" things, theology notwithstanding.

 

[Skandelon]

The kerygma is not powerful because of its words.

That is like saying words are not powerful because of its words. Or water is not wet because it is water. The kerygma is words and it is powerful, period.

Therein you have equivocated the word "gospel" for what it represents -- the actions of Christ as recorded in a particular historical way.

So the words don't have any power in your view, only the events that they testify to have any power?

John 1:7:
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. (there are many more verses like this...)

Sounds like the testimony does have some power. Again, I'm not claiming that which it testifies to doesn't have power, as you suggested. I'm saying BOTH are powerful because both are OF GOD. He inspired the words, just as in inspired the original acts to which those words testify, after all.

The "gospel" cannot "lie" because it is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history.

Again, are you really saying that the gospel is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history? You don't believe the gospel is wrought by supernatural inspiration? Surely you don't think the gospel/bible is just like a text book that just tells a story, do you? That is what you seem to be arguing. As if Jerome's extra-biblical account of Jesus' life is equally as powerful as the inspired gospel?

Had Christ not been born, according to the Scriptures, lived, according to the Scriptures, ministered, according to the Scriptures, died, according to the Scriptures, raised from the dead, according to the Scriptures, and ascended unto the throne of God the Father, according to the Scriptures, the "euangellion" would be nothing, for the reason IT IS "good news", i.e., "the gospel" is BECAUSE of what Christ did.

And why do you think I disagree with this? Again, I'm the one arguing that BOTH the actual events/people and the inspired testimony of those events/people have power. You are the one who have set them up as if they are somehow mutually exclusive of each other so statements like these only serve to prove my point.

They are, of course, not "just words." They are words that DESCRIBE GOD'S ACTION(S). It is the action that makes the words meaningful and powerful.

Yes, and....? Why are you disagreeing with me then?

You have, in order to hold up your theological house of cards, endued the WORD "gospel" with power that it does not have unless or until Christ ACTUALLY DID what makes it "good news." That the writers of Scripture used the term "euengellion" to describe the completed actions of Christ is what makes the gospel salfic, not merely the fact that words are shared.

Again:

Me = the actual work/words of Christ have POWER, as do the divinely inspired words that testify to Christ.

You = the actual work of Christ has power, but the testimony 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history.'

The word is powerful -- yes -- BECAUSE of the action that it represents, not merely because it is a particular word.

Which is it glf? I'm the one saying both are powerful and agreed that the testifying has power because it is from God and reflects the truth of actual powerful events. You are the one claiming he gospel/word 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history.'

 

[Skandelon]

Plus, if all the power is in the original event, that would presume that extra-biblical accounts which testify to those original events actually carry the same weight as the inspired scriptures, which of course is absurd.

You must understand that the words themselves are brought to us BY GOD and must be seen as a gracious and powerful work of the Holy Spirit. Words have power because they testify to the truth, YES, but they also have power because God himself actively intervened to inspired their writing, He indwells those who preach them, and He perseveres them over the ages... He is just as active in the original act as he is in the testimony of those truths. That is why they have POWER!

 

[glfredrick]

Just do a search for the word anti-Calvinism and find where I said that. You quoted me as if I said that and I didn't. You need to actually quote my words because you have proven yourself incapable of properly portraying what I've actually said. This is why I almost always go line by line through a post and quote the other poster verbatim. No one can accuse me of not responding to what has actually been said that way...or at least they can see for themselves what they think the intent is... that is why we have the quote feature. Use it, or just don't put words in other people's mouth.

Okay, here goes... From post #70

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1794056&postcount=70

You may be right in that the Calvinistic system is more defined around a singular concept, but the opposite is true in that the unifying point of non-Calvinists is that we reject the Calvinistic belief that God preselects some to be effectually saved leaving the rest to certain condemnation due to the imputed sin nature from the Fall. That may be the only point that unifies us (except being Baptists).

You did not use the word "anti" but it is intended in your definition above.

 

[glfredrick]

That is like saying words are not powerful because of its words. Or water is not wet because it is water. The kerygma is words and it is powerful, period.

So the words don't have any power in your view, only the events that they testify to have any power?

John 1:7:
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. (there are many more verses like this...)

Sounds like the testimony does have some power. Again, I'm not claiming that which it testifies to doesn't have power, as you suggested. I'm saying BOTH are powerful because both are OF GOD. He inspired the words, just as in inspired the original acts to which those words testify, after all.

Again, are you really saying that the gospel is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history? You don't believe the gospel is wrought by supernatural inspiration? Surely you don't think the gospel/bible is just like a text book that just tells a story, do you? That is what you seem to be arguing. As if Jerome's extra-biblical account of Jesus' life is equally as powerful as the inspired gospel?

And why do you think I disagree with this? Again, I'm the one arguing that BOTH the actual events/people and the inspired testimony of those events/people have power. You are the one who have set them up as if they are somehow mutually exclusive of each other so statements like these only serve to prove my point.

Yes, and....? Why are you disagreeing with me then?



Again:

Me = the actual work/words of Christ have POWER, as do the divinely inspired words that testify to Christ.

You = the actual work of Christ has power, but the testimony 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history.'

Which is it glf? I'm the one saying both are powerful and agreed that the testifying has power because it is from God and reflects the truth of actual powerful events. You are the one claiming he gospel/word 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history.'

The testimony has power because it speaks of an event.

Why is that so hard to figure out?

 

[Skandelon]

The testimony has power because it speaks of an event.

Why is that so hard to figure out?

Ok, now you just aren't reading my posts.

Please follow along...I agreed with you on that point, which you would know if you were reading my post. My point was that its power is NOT solely based on that fact otherwise any testimony (even extra-biblical testimony) would carry the same weight. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

 

[Skandelon]

Okay, here goes... From post #70

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1794056&postcount=70

You did not use the word "anti" but it is intended in your definition above.

Oh, so not only do you admit to misquoting me but now you can read my mind and tell me what my intent is? :laugh:

My intent is to say exactly what I said, which WAS NOT, as you implied, that non-calvinists don't have any positive affirmations of faith, but only are anti-Calvinists. The fact that I put in there that Baptist doctrine (a positive affirmation of our beliefs) is a unifying point proves this fact. Simply because here we all disagree with the premise of Calvinism and unite behind that one common point doesn't in any way even imply that we don't also share some positive affirmations of our own views on predestination, salvation, and election. I've shared those here numerous times.

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

Maybe you can explain it for us:thumbs::thumbs:


Does your idea of an atonement actually atone..or is it only potential...

I'll answer the way you did recently "you really don't want to to know because (me,Skandelon, Allan, Amy, etc) has answerd this many times"

besides...since you disagree you obviously don't understand it