Calvinists & Arminian Together

[Reformed]

No....I do not categorize myself as such so I will continue to refuse that characterization. Whats more, I will use it as an opportunity to have them present what they contend a Calvinist is.

There are many in here who are called Arminian, but they object to that description (and do it loudly) so why should I not do likewise?

I went over this in the "label" thread I created a few weeks back. My case was made there.

I will continue to refer to those who hold to the Synergist view as Arminian and those who hold to the Monergist view as Calvinist. Whether they accept it or not is irrelevant.

It is not personal. It is just theology.

 

[convicted1]

Nevertheless, Jesus made it very clear that there is one sin that would not be covered by His sacrifice. So we can stop declaring all men would be saved just by the cross even without having faith in Jesus Christ. And since the scriptures say that salvation is by faith, from cover to cover, it is not that difficult to understand that it is unbelief in God's Word (Jesus Christ) which is the sin not covered by the cross.

You believe in a limited atonement? Perish the thought...

 

[convicted1]

Brother Herald, I didn't know you wore knickers....

 

[Yeshua1]

I went over this in the "label" thread I created a few weeks back. My case was made there.

I will continue to refer to those who hold to the Synergist view as Arminian and those who hold to the Monergist view as Calvinist. Whether they accept it or not is irrelevant.

It is not personal. It is just theology.

Isn't there though another label/group here?

As there are many who agree that we have experienced the fall and Original Sin, and that the Grace of God is required to have us turn to God and get saved who are "armininian", but isn't that view a lot different than those who deny original Sin, and whose view is that man can freely respond still to God?

 

[convicted1]

Arminians and non-Cals aren't the same. Arminians have a structured theological system. Non-Cals' doctrine is all over the place, Yesh...

 

[Reformed]

Brother Herald, I didn't know you wore knickers....

Only on special occasions. Normally I wear a kilt.

 

[convicted1]

Better not go out on a blustery day. You know what the say about men and kilts....

 

[webdog]

Arminians and non-Cals aren't the same. Arminians have a structured theological system. Non-Cals' doctrine is all over the place, Yesh...

Structured is meaningless. We are to hold to biblical truth regardless of mans structure. I refuse to box God into my little meager "structure"

 

[Reformed]

Arminians and non-Cals aren't the same. Arminians have a structured theological system. Non-Cals' doctrine is all over the place, Yesh...

Brother, to be fair to our Synergist brethren, some of them have a highly structured theological system. It is not the structure that I contend with, it is the structure's conclusions.

 

[steaver]

And.....???? What does this have to do with my being a Calvinist or NOT?

Nothing, I was bringing you back on point, you are the one who non-answered my point with "I am NOT a Calvinist", never actually contending with the point made that Jesus made an exception for a sin that would not be covered by the cross. So the notion that all would be saved by the cross because all sin would be atoned for is bogus.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nothing, I was bringing you back on point, you are the one who non-answered my point with "I am NOT a Calvinist", never actually contending with the point made that Jesus made an exception for a sin that would not be covered by the cross. So the notion that all would be saved by the cross because all sin would be atoned for is bogus.

I never stated that all are saved by the cross.... only the ones that God gave to Christ for that propitiation are saved. Seriously, did you read my posts earlier?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Brother, to be fair to our Synergist brethren, some of them have a highly structured theological system. It is not the structure that I contend with, it is the structure's conclusions.

EXACTLY:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

I never stated that all are saved by the cross.... only the ones that God gave to Christ for that propitiation are saved. Seriously, did you read my posts earlier?

If Christ made propitiation for sin by his death then we have 2 different synarios right?

1) its for all the sins of all the people of the world. As a result, all will be saved.

2) propition for the sins of His elect, who alone are saved.

Draw your own conclusions.

Which began my post on the premise you introduced..........

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother, to be fair to our Synergist brethren, some of them have a highly structured theological system. It is not the structure that I contend with, it is the structure's conclusions.

Which particular systems are you referring to here?

 

[Yeshua1]

Which began my post on the premise you introduced..........

basically, we have either there are sinners whom Jesus died for, in their place, but they will not receive that benefit, so their sin debt is paid in full, but not cashed by them, or else they were never intended to be saved by death of christ...

 

[steaver]

basically, we have either there are sinners whom Jesus died for, in their place, but they will not receive that benefit, so their sin debt is paid in full, but not cashed by them, or else they were never intended to be saved by death of christ...

The atonement has been made for the sins of the "whole world", God's Word, not mine. All sin shall be forgiven mankind, except for unbelief, God's Word, not mine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

All right....let me be clear....if Christ died for all the sins of all men, unbelief included.....then all are saved. Nope Bible doesn't claim that. Now if Christ died for all the sins of all men, unbelief excluded then he did not die for all the sins of anybody and all must be condemned. The last possibility is that He died for the sins of His elect only. And that's what I undestand the Bible teaches.

 

[Yeshua1]

The atonement has been made for the sins of the "whole world", God's Word, not mine. All sin shall be forgiven mankind, except for unbelief, God's Word, not mine.

Again, you are stuck with God intending death of jesus to cover all sins for all sinners, and desires all to get saved by Him, yet many do not get saved....

Almost seems that God is honoring their free will over even his own will?

 

[steaver]

Again, you are stuck with God intending death of jesus to cover all sins for all sinners, and desires all to get saved by Him, yet many do not get saved....

Almost seems that God is honoring their free will over even his own will?

So you believe that God, in His sovereign will, is not allowed to give freewill and honor freewill with His creation?

 

[steaver]

All right....let me be clear....if Christ died for all the sins of all men, unbelief included.....then all are saved. Nope Bible doesn't claim that. .

Amen!

Now if Christ died for all the sins of all men, unbelief excluded then he did not die for all the sins of anybody and all must be condemned.

??? how do you come up with that. Your scenario says Christ died for all the sins of men except unbelief and then declare this means Christ did not dies for the sins of anybody. Is that double speak or what?

The last possibility is that He died for the sins of His elect only. And that's what I undestand the Bible teaches

But there is that little problem found in the scriptures, when John says Christ died for the sins of the "whole" world.