Arminian Aberrations

[MB]

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

I can agree with that but a thought just entered my head.... Maybe there is something about understanding,,,,, maybe this what Calvinist are really trying to relate. They just can't understand Oh well they have there excuses.
MB

 

[glfredrick]

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?

I read that. I agree that God's Word is both inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, but I disagree that the words themselves are "magical" in the way that you suggest. It is always God's actions that make the words live.

The extra-biblical writings are a great resource, confirm the actual historical accounts, but are neither inspired by the Holy Spirit nor illuminated by the Holy Spirit -- both actions of God that only God can do -- and both eliminate the potential that some willing anthropos can on his or her own acheive some form of salvific faith that will achieve what only God can do.

You really need to read up on Barth because you are unwittingly re-hashing his dead arguments.

 

[glfredrick]

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.

You said rather clearly that the anti-cal issue was the only thing that united the non-cals.

 

[DaChaser1]

I read that. I agree that God's Word is both inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, but I disagree that the words themselves are "magical" in the way that you suggest. It is always God's actions that make the words live.

The extra-biblical writings are a great resource, confirm the actual historical accounts, but are neither inspired by the Holy Spirit nor illuminated by the Holy Spirit -- both actions of God that only God can do -- and both eliminate the potential that some willing anthropos can on his or her own acheive some form of salvific faith that will achieve what only God can do.

You really need to read up on Barth because you are unwittingly re-hashing his dead arguments.

The Gospel saves us in the sense that what it describes to us, death of jesus upon Cross for atonment of sins to God, and by His resurrection God declared that it was fully accepted, wrath satisified/appeased...

the Cross saves us, the Gospels testify to that definite act by God,they are revelation of that truth, not some magic in words themselves to regenerate us, its the Act of Jesus that saves, not the printed words tellig us about that!

Skan attributes some magical power in the Bible, thatactivates our hidden spiritual selves to come to Christ an dget saved!

 

[Don]

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.

Competent rhetorician? Shucks, I dream of being competent at something, anything, some day....

Non-cals are accused of not understanding the calvinist position, and misrepresenting what the calvinist supporters allegedly believe. There is a fair amount of that, due to what non-cals *think* calvinists believe, and applying that thought to all calvinists.

The same is true in the opposite direction: calvinists identify what they *think* non-cals believe, then apply that thought to all non-cals.

Then, when shown that a certain individual or individuals don't actually believe that way, each side identifies that individual or individuals as "aberrations of the norm," and continue to force what they *think* about the other into the argument. They each build an argument based on this thought, thus creating straw men all over the place. The result is that we have multiple threads talking about what the other believes, and attempting to discredit that thought, without anyone actually having the thought that needs to be discredited. And we end up with so many straw men all over the place, you'd think we'd all be getting huge government revenues from all the cornfields (okay, that lame attempt at humor may have fallen flat).

For example, the subject of limited atonement. A calvinist finds writings by a fellow calvinist that identifies how arminians or other non-cals view limited atonement, and then sets out paragraphs or books of why that viewpoint is incorrect.

Perhaps the better thing to do would be to pull the writings of your opposite viewpoint (for example, a non-cal pulls the actual writings of Calvin, while a calvinist pulls the actual writings of Arminius), and discuss those ad infinitum.

Or a cal can pull the writings of a noted arminian, and then we can all discuss how that particular arminian agrees or differs with Arminius himself, and where the arminian is correct and/or incorrect. Same with calvinists.

For a current example of this, see another thread where a calvinist quoted the judgment from the Synod of Dort to refute arminian teachings. The error with this approach is using something you agree with to refute an opposite viewpoint, without verifying that the opposite viewpoint actually taught or supported the viewpoint you're attempting to refute.

It's like saying, "Ben told me Sally doesn't like ice cream; she's so stupid for not liking ice cream" without ever asking Sally if she actually likes ice cream.

Instead, most of the time, we just inject our own understanding (or belief that we understand) of what "the other side thinks" into what we see them post, and then we take them to task for it.

-----
I had a medical procedure yesterday, and I'm still feeling the effects of the anasthesia. I'll probably come back here tomorrow and wonder, "when and why did I write that?" Right now, I think I'm going to go home and try to sleep it off.

 

[Aaron]

Well, I was going to take up my sword against Scandal, but glfredrick has carved a Z in Charlie's bum. Way to go. :thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

He didn't preach the gospel. He told elements of truth contained in the gospel, but he didn't preach the gospel. Where did he mention the cross, atonement, resurrection and call them to repentance and faith? What kind of gospel doesn't mention those elements? ...one that hasn't been fulfilled yet?

What did Jesus say? He told them to drink his blood and eat his flesh without much explanation as to what that meant. He was clearly provoking them to leave...He was trying to drive them away...everyone of them except the 12 who the Father had given to HIM. The gospel wasn't even understood by the apostles until after he was raised up and that is when Jesus sent them to preach it into all the world. Peter preaches and 2000 of the same Jews who cried out 'crucify him' come to faith. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING BLINDED. It wasn't even until much later when Paul is called to go to the Gentiles and Peter has his white sheet dream that the gospel is sent to the Gentiles which was God's means of 'granting them faith.'

Pure flatulence.

 

[quantumfaith]

Pure flatulence.

Such wisdom, intellect and decorum on display.

BTW, what is the derivative of f(x)=(x^2-1)/(x^2+1)

 

[Skandelon]

I read that. I agree that God's Word is both inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit

Then why did you say the gospel 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history?'

but I disagree that the words themselves are "magical" in the way that you suggest.

When did I use the word magical? I didn't. So once again you are attacking a straw-man by putting words in my mouth. Instead of the word 'magical' why not "...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."

Or if that is just too long then maybe the word 'supernatural' or 'inspired' or 'enlightening.' But 'magical' would be WRONG, unless you think the Holy Spirit's work in inspiring and carrying His message is magical? Do you? Do you agree its supernatural? And living and active? OR do you still think, as you said before, that 'is nothing more than a description of an actual event in history?' Which one?

It is always God's actions that make the words live.

Yep. :thumbs: Which is why you were wrong to say his words are 'nothing more than a description of an actual event in history.' I'm glad you see that now.

The extra-biblical writings are a great resource, confirm the actual historical accounts, but are neither inspired by the Holy Spirit nor illuminated by the Holy Spirit

oooo, sounds like you think the scriptures are 'magical' or something. :smilewinkgrin:

-- both actions of God that only God can do -- and both eliminate the potential that some willing anthropos can on his or her own acheive some form of salvific faith that will achieve what only God can do.

Well, let's think about that statement. Are you saying that someone can hear or read the powerful Holy Spirit inspired truth of the gospel and still be considered 'on his or her own?'

Because if that is what you are saying, then when a man rejects the gospel that is somehow proof that God chose NOT to illuminate it for him then you have just confirmed what I've been saying to Aaron all along in the "Meow Mix" thread. In the Cal system, the reason one person rejects the gospel is because God didn't illuminate it for him. The reason someone doesn't believe is because God doesn't grant them the faith. You have given all unbelievers and those who rebel against the gospel truth the PERFECT excuse. You have elevated humanity from guilty by reason of premeditated willful lawbreakers, to innocent by reason of insanity (inability)....they were born that way and didn't have what they needed to accept it.

My view of man is much much worse than yours. For those who reject God do so in the face of his genuine love and gracious provisions, while in your view they haven't really ever clearly seen or understood and thus have an excuse. (ref. Romans 1)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

You really need to read up on Barth because you are unwittingly re-hashing his dead arguments.

I guess since your Pelagian accusations didn't stick you need to find another dead theologian to attempt to strap me to huh? That must be easier to do than debate my actual words, right, Joseph Hussey? You kind of sound like him to me...at least I bet I could find something he said that kind of remotely sounds like something you said and since that is the standard around here then it must be true. :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Such wisdom, intellect and decorum on display.

Nothing new Quantum, he does this kind of thing at the end of just about every one our discussions. As my Asian butcher always says, "It's not his fart."

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, and notice he didn't answer my question:

Where did he mention the cross, atonement, resurrection and call them to repentance and faith? What kind of gospel doesn't mention those elements?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pure flatulence.

Ohhhh, LOL ....we are doing one line fart jokes now:laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

Nothing new Quantum, he does this kind of thing at the end of just about every one our discussions. About when he runs out of his pat answers he bails out by making some immature remark. Sometimes its pretty funny, but he is losing his edge a bit. As my Asian butcher always says, "It's not his fart."

I am so disappointed, as I can tell he can be a very bright person, but something just seems to drive him to resort to such.

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow, why am I not amazed at this?

Oh, and notice he didn't answer my question:

Where did he mention the cross, atonement, resurrection and call them to repentance and faith? What kind of gospel doesn't mention those elements?

Um. Aaron isn't skipping out on you as you hope nor is he refusing to answer you, so, if you'd actually look at what he said, then you'd see you've already been answered. You're simply yet again in error. You're way off track as usual while building yet another strawman, totally misrepresenting Aaron and leaving out the context of what he actually stated.

Here's what Aaron actually said in context:

It's not an assumption. Christ said just that.

Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.​

This, right after He preached the Gospel, and not in parables, that many rejected.

Note he said "right after [this] He preached the Gospel" or did you miss that, or, was it conveniently left off? See that? He didn't say "no man can come unto me" was the Gospel. Again, he said the Gospel was right after that. Get your facts straight.

Within the context of John 6 is THE Gospel which actually differs from the list you provide above. In the following text is where Aaron states that He preached the Gospel prior. One should go read the text? No? Why? Well, the Gospel is there.

John 6:51. The DEATH of Christ, implying burial.

John 6:39, 40, 44, 54, 62 We see the implications of RESURRECTION and of Christ.

Thus we have the true Gospel preached after, just as Aaron said, albeit it takes a keen spiritual eye to pick that up and see it. Reading the context of others statements AND the Scriptural portion is helpful. :thumbsup:

In addition, you misunderstand the Gospel. Why? You say the Gospel is "faith, repentance." Not so. Those are called a response to the Gospel, thus they are not the Gospel. There's a difference, and frankly you're incorrect. You should know these distinctions.

The Gospel? It's the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, 1 Cor. 15:1-6. Some add "sighting," in 5-6 which is OK because it is there in context. None add faith and repentance, as most know those are simply responses, and aren't the Gospel as you've incorrectly assumed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wow, why am I not amazed at this?



Um. Aaron isn't skipping out on you as you hope nor is he refusing to answer you, so, if you'd actually look at what he said, then you'd see you've already been answered. You're simply yet again in error. You're way off track as usual while building yet another strawman, totally misrepresenting Aaron and leaving out the context of what he actually stated.

Here's what Aaron actually said in context:



Note he said "right after [this] He preached the Gospel" or did you miss that, or, was it conveniently left off? See that? He didn't say "no man can come unto me" was the Gospel. Again, he said the Gospel was right after that. Get your facts straight.

Within the context of John 6 is THE Gospel which actually differs from the list you provide above. In the following text is where Aaron states that He preached the Gospel prior. One should go read the text? No? Why? Well, the Gospel is there.

John 6:51. The DEATH of Christ, implying burial.

John 6:39, 40, 44, 54, 62 We see the implications of RESURRECTION and of Christ.

Thus we have the true Gospel preached after, just as Aaron said, albeit it takes a keen spiritual eye to pick that up and see it. Reading the context of others statements AND the Scriptural portion is helpful. :thumbsup:

In addition, you misunderstand the Gospel. Why? You say the Gospel is "faith, repentance." Not so. Those are called a response to the Gospel, thus they are not the Gospel. There's a difference, and frankly you're incorrect. You should know these distinctions.

The Gospel? It's the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, 1 Cor. 15:1-6. Some add "sighting," in 5-6 which is OK because it is there in context. None add faith and repentance, as most know those are simply responses, and aren't the Gospel as you've incorrectly assumed.

Frankly brothers, there is not much I can add to Preacher4Truthe's commentary....he has spoken what I see as correct interpretations of Gospel & of course there are those who will disagree ..... however it is our sincere interpretation, for what its worth.

 

[Skandelon]

I typically don't see your post anymore P4T, but since EWF copied it I suppose I'll reveal your obvious errors.

Note he said "right after [this] He preached the Gospel" or did you miss that, or, was it conveniently left off? See that? He didn't say "no man can come unto me" was the Gospel. Again, he said the Gospel was right after that. Get your facts straight.

I didn't say that verse was the gospel, I said, "He didn't preach the gospel. He told elements of truth contained in the gospel, but he didn't preach the [full] gospel"...of which essential elements would certainly contain an appeal to repent, believe in him as the messiah who atones for their sin, and be reconciled. Why would he make that appeal in John 6? He wouldn't; and to suggest that he did is kind of silly.

He doesn't make the appeal for reconciliation until after he is lifted up and the HS comes down like fire. That is when he commissions the apostles to go into all the world. Before then he was hiding the gospel in parables, telling the disciple not to tell others about his miracles because its not the right time, etc.

This is not just my opinion. These are just stated facts.

Within the context of John 6 is THE Gospel which actually differs from the list you provide above. In the following text is where Aaron states that He preached the Gospel prior. One should go read the text? No? Why? Well, the Gospel is there.

John 6:51. The DEATH of Christ, implying burial.

I've noticed you using the word 'implying' a lot. Why might that be? Could it be that He is being purposefully unclear...like when he speaks in parables?

it takes a keen spiritual eye to pick that up and see it.

Exactly, and only those reserved for the noble purpose of being the foundation for the church have been entrusted to this information at that time..."the rest are being hardened." (John 12:39, which is the REAL reason they are unable to believe)

Like I said, He is preaching elements of the gospel truth but you know as well as I do that the audience nor even his own apostles really know what is about to happen. The APPEAL to believe and repent has not been sent yet, and I think deep down you know that to be the case and so does Aaron. He is just wise enough to leave with a fart joke and be done with it. :smilewinkgrin:

In addition, you misunderstand the Gospel. Why? You say the Gospel is "faith, repentance." Not so. Those are called a response to the Gospel, thus they are not the Gospel. There's a difference, and frankly you're incorrect. You should know these distinctions.

:laugh:

Ok, I'll study up on that more. I'm remembering why you are on the ignore list...

I simply was referring to the fact that He doesn't call them to faith or repentance. He doesn't appeal for them to be reconciled. He doesn't want them to repent yet.

"He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

P4T, listen and please try to understand, if what happens in Acts 2 after Peter preached the gospel happened in John 6 there wouldn't have been a crucifixion. Ok?

The Gospel? It's the death, burial and resurrection of Christ

Right, which HASN'T HAPPENED YET! :BangHead:

And the gospel is more...its the appeal to be reconciled to God. That appeal has not been made as of John 6, but instead the truth was hidden from Israel as they were being judicially hardened:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

For what reason couldn't they believe, you ask?
Because they, like all of mankind, were born with a totally depraved nature due to the fall of Adam and were cursed with a nature that simply cannot understand and accept God's revealed truth?

No, because 'God blinded their eyes and deadened their [Israel] hearts.' But "I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28:28)

 

[quantumfaith]

I typically don't see your post anymore P4T, but since EWF copied it I suppose I'll reveal your obvious errors.

I didn't say that verse was the gospel, I said, "He didn't preach the gospel. He told elements of truth contained in the gospel, but he didn't preach the [full] gospel"...of which essential elements would certainly contain an appeal to repent, believe in him as the messiah who atones for their sin, and be reconciled. Why would he make that appeal in John 6? He wouldn't; and to suggest that he did is kind of silly.

He doesn't make the appeal for reconciliation until after he is lifted up and the HS comes down like fire. That is when he commissions the apostles to go into all the world. Before then he was hiding the gospel in parables, telling the disciple not to tell others about his miracles because its not the right time, etc.

This is not just my opinion. These are just stated facts.

I've noticed you using the word 'implying' a lot. Why might that be? Could it be that He is being purposefully unclear...like when he speaks in parables?

Exactly, and only those reserved for the noble purpose of being the foundation for the church have been entrusted to this information at that time..."the rest are being hardened." (John 12:39, which is the REAL reason they are unable to believe)

Like I said, He is preaching elements of the gospel truth but you know as well as I do that the audience nor even his own apostles really know what is about to happen. The APPEAL to believe and repent has not been sent yet, and I think deep down you know that to be the case and so does Aaron. He is just wise enough to leave with a fart joke and be done with it. :smilewinkgrin:

:laugh:

Ok, I'll study up on that more. I'm remembering why you are on the ignore list...

I simply was referring to the fact that He doesn't call them to faith or repentance. He doesn't appeal for them to be reconciled. He doesn't want them to repent yet.

"He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

P4T, listen and please try to understand, if what happens in Acts 2 after Peter preached the gospel happened in John 6 there wouldn't have been a crucifixion. Ok?

Right, which HASN'T HAPPENED YET! :BangHead:

And the gospel is more...its the appeal to be reconciled to God. That appeal has not been made as of John 6, but instead the truth was hidden from Israel as they were being judicially hardened:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

For what reason couldn't they believe, you ask?
Because they, like all of mankind, were born with a totally depraved nature due to the fall of Adam and were cursed with a nature that simply cannot understand and accept God's revealed truth?

No, because 'God blinded their eyes and deadened their [Israel] hearts.' But "I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" (Acts 28:28)

Some folks attempt to find fault as if there is a reward for doing so.

 

[Amy.G]

double post

 

[Amy.G]

Ohhhh, LOL ....we are doing one line fart jokes now:laugh:

Now that's an aberration. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[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.

In addition to the Charles Hodge quote I already provided which proved you wrong already, I thought it necessary to provide a AA Hodge quote just in case:

"There is no debate among Christians as to the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salvation of all men, however vast the number. This is absolutely limitless. 2d. Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and every possible human sinner who will ever exist. The relation of all to the demands of the law are identical. What would save one would save another. 3d. Nor to the bona fide character of the offer which God has made to 'whomsoever wills' in the gospel. It is applicable to every one, it will infallibly be applied to every believer. 4th. Nor as to its actual application."

I just love that he used almost every form of the word "applicable" just to be sure no one could misunderstand him. :smilewinkgrin: