COMMON-ground?

[glfredrick]

Find them. If these concepts have been "boldly expressed" and "apparent" then it should be easy for you to produce JUST ONE. I think it might be interesting because then we could look at the actual context of their post to see what they mean versus what you apparently think they mean, because I can assure you that no scholarly Arminian worth his salt would EVER make the claims you suggest that "boldly expressed" here.

When you find them let me know and I'll join you in scolding them for their false views! :type:

Whoa, whoa, whoa... You have went from "NNE" to "no scholarly Arminian worth his salt..."

In the real world we call that backpedaling! :wavey:

I believe that we can find examples, and if one wanted to search through any number of posts the evidence could be brought forth. In fact, I recall another thread where the topic went in exactly this same direction and I provided any number of quotes from individuals on this board who did exactly what you suggest that NNE would ever do. I also recall that thread being closed, like all the others where a mod exceeded his bounds and inserted personal theology into a thread and used that as a device to censor other opinions that ran contra that of the mod.

So, you can continue in this intentional fallacy of excessive research or you can let the debate continue, but in a way that is not an attack of a moderator on a member who is merely posting his own theological views.

 

[preacher4truth]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... You have went from "NNE" to "no scholarly Arminian worth his salt..."

In the real world we call that backpedaling! :wavey:

I believe that we can find examples, and if one wanted to search through any number of posts the evidence could be brought forth. In fact, I recall another thread where the topic went in exactly this same direction and I provided any number of quotes from individuals on this board who did exactly what you suggest that NNE would ever do. I also recall that thread being closed, like all the others where a mod exceeded his bounds and inserted personal theology into a thread and used that as a device to censor other opinions that ran contra that of the mod.

So, you can continue in this intentional fallacy of excessive research or you can let the debate continue, but in a way that is not an attack of a moderator on a member who is merely posting his own theological views.

Exactly. Let's turn it from what others on here have said plainly, because then I would stand correct, and lets turn it to another group "scholarly arminians" and now let's debate in a different sandbox.

This just gets silly.

I would appreciate us to study one other immediate context. THIS THREAD wherein Skandelon argues I said these men are saving themselves.

Nothing in the context or in my words support this whatsoever.

I'd appreciate a Christian apology. :love2:

 

[JesusFan]

1. Romans 3 passage is speaking of man's condition under the law, prior to the "righteousness apart from the law being revealed." (vs. 21).

2. Proof that we don't seek God on our own, is not proof that we can't respond to a God actively seeking us. He seeks us by coming to earth, inspiring the apostles, breathing the scriptures and founding His Bride, the church. That is hardly "on our own."

Find them. If these concepts have been "boldly expressed" and "apparent" then it should be easy for you to produce JUST ONE. I think it might be interesting because then we could look at the actual context of their post to see what they mean versus what you apparently think they mean, because I can assure you that no scholarly Arminian worth his salt would EVER make the claims you suggest that "boldly expressed" here.

Think we are just asking for "fair and balanced" not a double standard from the Moderators here on BB!

seems that we who hold to a More cal sotierology gdo tend to get "blasted' as being holding to false doctrines/God as a puppet mater, cruel God, ignorant in beliefs etc...

That is quite common, here, just look at the accumulated postings in areas of Salvation!

When you find them let me know and I'll join you in scolding them for their false views! :type:

Seems that there an attempt to make sure that non cal sand the views would be seen as being the "real biblical" way of expessing Sotierology!

Not upset, more like amused, as those of us who hold the contary position seem to exhibit morr of the "fruit" in how we address those accusing/opossing us here...

Guess we are not all "heartless' and ignorant here, Eh?

 

[JesusFan]

Exactly. Let's turn it from what others on here have said plainly, because then I would stand correct, and lets turn it to another group "scholarly arminians" and now let's debate in a different sandbox.

This just gets silly.

I would appreciate us to study one other immediate context. THIS THREAD wherein Skandelon argues I said these men are saving themselves.

Nothing in the context or in my words support this whatsoever.

I'd appreciate a Christian apology. :love2:

My view same for either Cals/Arms

You writers/authors validate what the Apostles already recorded, or they don't

Its Apostles Peter/Paul/John NOT Calvin/Clarke/Wesley etc!

 

[Skandelon]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... You have went from "NNE" to "no scholarly Arminian worth his salt..."

In the real world we call that backpedaling! :wavey:

You guys read my posts like you read the scriptures.

I said, "I think it might be interesting because then we could look at the actual context of their post to see what they mean versus what you apparently think they mean, because I can assure you that no scholarly Arminian worth his salt would EVER make the claims you suggest that "boldly expressed" here."

See how I referred to looking at the context of those who posts here first and THEN I referred to how that might relate to what Arminians typically believe (as represented by the scholars)? I'm clearly saying that I doubt the posters here disagree with the scholars if you actually look at their real quotes in context. I thought that was abundantly clear.

Must I explain everything over and over again for you to understand the simple intent? And I'll take this argument as an admission from you and P4T that real "Scholarly" Arminians don't really hold to these views, thank you. My mission has been accomplished. :love2:

 

[preacher4truth]

You guys read my posts like you read the scriptures.

I said, "I think it might be interesting because then we could look at the actual context of their post to see what they mean versus what you apparently think they mean, because I can assure you that no scholarly Arminian worth his salt would EVER make the claims you suggest that "boldly expressed" here."

See how I referred to looking at the context of those who posts here first and THEN I referred to how that might relate to what Arminians typically believe (as represented by the scholars)? I'm clearly saying that I doubt the posters here disagree with the scholars if you actually look at their real quotes in context. I thought that was abundantly clear.

Must I explain everything over and over again for you to understand the simple intent? And I'll take this argument as an admission from you and P4T that real "Scholarly" Arminians don't really hold to these views, thank you. My mission has been accomplished. :love2:

Yes, we certainly do read your posts like Scriptures, and interpret them concisely in the process. Then afterwards you move the debate into a different direction, adding things no one used in context as if they have, attempting to avoid the truth and dismantling of your system and misrepresentations.

Yep, your strawman is accomplished. :wavey:

No one was talking of "scholarly arminians" except, well, you. This is how you twist things and pretend to give yourself the winning trophy. :love2:

Hopefully too, your misrepresentions of me as well are over.

 

[Skandelon]

You could choose to see it that way,

Could I? Really? :tongue3:

but I believe that Aaron's illustration is closer to the truth than most are willing to admit.

Yet, the question Calvinist can't seem to consistently answer is why would God grant you Calvinists the grace to see and understand Christ so fully, while leaving the rest of us poor saps looking at him from a distance? I mean, we all know its nothing in you by which you might boast (if you are consistent), so it must have been God's choice to grant you with this "Calvinistic" view of Christ while leaving us looking at him next to our big thumbs in the distance. I wonder why God would do that to some of his children? Why do you suppose God would leave many of his children in the darkness on this issue making us view him from so far away while giving you all the inside view of this "sovereignty?" I suppose you think God elects some of the elect to reveal these deeper truths to while relegating the rest of his elect ones to a distant mountain to compare Christ to the size of our thumbs?

Interesting, and sad. :tear:

 

[TCGreek]

Could I? Really? :tongue3:



Yet, the question Calvinist can't seem to consistently answer is why would God grant you Calvinists the grace to see and understand Christ so fully, while leaving the rest of us poor saps looking at him from a distance? I mean, we all know its nothing in you by which you might boast (if you are consistent), so it must have been God's choice to grant you with this "Calvinistic" view of Christ while leaving us looking at him next to our big thumbs in the distance. I wonder why God would do that to some of his children? Why do you suppose God would leave many of his children in the darkness on this issue making us view him from so far away while giving you all the inside view of this "sovereignty?" I suppose you think God elects some of the elect to reveal these deeper truths to while relegating the rest of his elect ones to a distant mountain to compare Christ to the size of our thumbs?

Interesting, and sad. :tear:

What other choice do the rest of us have? Well put.

 

[glfredrick]

Could I? Really? :tongue3:



Yet, the question Calvinist can't seem to consistently answer is why would God grant you Calvinists the grace to see and understand Christ so fully, while leaving the rest of us poor saps looking at him from a distance? I mean, we all know its nothing in you by which you might boast (if you are consistent), so it must have been God's choice to grant you with this "Calvinistic" view of Christ while leaving us looking at him next to our big thumbs in the distance. I wonder why God would do that to some of his children? Why do you suppose God would leave many of his children in the darkness on this issue making us view him from so far away while giving you all the inside view of this "sovereignty?" I suppose you think God elects some of the elect to reveal these deeper truths to while relegating the rest of his elect ones to a distant mountain to compare Christ to the size of our thumbs?

Interesting, and sad. :tear:

So, you admit that you are in darkness... :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

No one was talking of "scholarly arminians" except, well, you.

And that is part of the problem. If I thought Arminianism was what you portrayed it to be I'd be a Calvinist too.

I challenge you, I dare you, to actually confront real scholarly non-Calvinistic views instead of these simpleton misrepresentations. When you can move beyond these shallow accusations and misrepresentation of what true Arminians believe and into a respectful and intelligent discussion let me know. And when you run across a non-Calvinists who says some of the ridiculous things you accuse them of saying just let me know and I'll be glad to correct them for misrepresenting Arminianism in the same way some here misrepresent mainstream Calvinistic views. Ok?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Im back! Have we achieved any common ground yet?

 

[Skandelon]

So, you admit that you are in darkness... :laugh:

I admit that if you are correct, yes, I am in darkness concerning this view (Calvinism) and I want you to explain why you suppose that is. Can you answer the question or are you just going to avoid the difficulty the question poses with quips and smilies?

 

[preacher4truth]

Could I? Really? :tongue3:



Yet, the question Calvinist can't seem to consistently answer is why would God grant you Calvinists the grace to see and understand Christ so fully, while leaving the rest of us poor saps looking at him from a distance? I mean, we all know its nothing in you by which you might boast (if you are consistent), so it must have been God's choice to grant you with this "Calvinistic" view of Christ while leaving us looking at him next to our big thumbs in the distance. I wonder why God would do that to some of his children? Why do you suppose God would leave many of his children in the darkness on this issue making us view him from so far away while giving you all the inside view of this "sovereignty?" I suppose you think God elects some of the elect to reveal these deeper truths to while relegating the rest of his elect ones to a distant mountain to compare Christ to the size of our thumbs?

Interesting, and sad. :tear:

What a mess. This is exactly how you come across, so the shoe does fit you. All of us other poor saps aren't as superior as thou?

Do each receive the same gifts, talents? Do all diligently seek God? Are all just rewarded by Him for nought, or are those who diligently seek Him rewarded in this way only?

Were all apostles? Are all given his insight?

Do all come to see Gods Sovereignty as it truly is, or do some others choose to turn a blind eye to this?

I believe what is at stake here is others outside calvinism refuse to look at the issues presented, thinking that some of them make God seem unfair.

Thus one must make all fit into their theological box.

Thus, cals have allowed not a theological position to interpret Scripture, and have instead let the very Scriptures we hold to reaveal the Glory of God in all His facets, and trust Him at all times in them. Many have rejected theological positions and have arrived at conclusions of DoG/Calvinism/Reformed thought by thoroughly and humbly accepting all the Scriptures say, and some come to this even after previously rejecting these truths, coming to find out these teachings are true, and then embrace them, i.e. me.

We happen to interpret Scripture within a comprehensive entire counsel of God framework. Most who oppose cals use a proof-text methodology, and view the Bible as simple. And I'm talking on here, not some dude named "Joe Shmogul" somewhere who is an alleged "arminian scholar." K?

- Peace

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I admit that if you are correct, yes, I am in darkness concerning this view (Calvinism) and I want you to explain why you suppose that is. Can you answer the question or are you just going to avoid the difficulty the question poses with quips and smilies?

Maybe you guys need to do this privately because its not soundin too good right now....just a suggestion.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

I believe what is at stake here is others outside calvinism refuse to look at the issues presented, thinking that some of them make God seem unfair.

That is a given under the presumption that Calvinism is true. I'm asking why? Why do you suppose some of God's elect children "refuse to look at the issues" and go on thinking that "makes God seem unfair," while you don't? Is God not sovereign enough to bring all his children into correct understanding on this view of truth?

Many have rejected theological positions and have arrived at conclusions of DoG/Calvinism/Reformed thought by thoroughly and humbly accepting all the Scriptures say

So, are you saying that Calvinistic believers are more humble and thus able to accept these thoughts? If so, where did you get your humility? From God, right? Why didn't he give it to all of his children?

We happen to interpret Scripture within a comprehensive entire counsel of God framework.

Ok, but why? Are you smarter? More intelligent? More humble? What good do you have that you have not received and why wouldn't God grant that "good" to all his children? Why would he relegate some of us to view God wrongly and "less sovereignly" than other children?

 

[preacher4truth]

And that is part of the problem. If I thought Arminianism was what you portrayed it to be I'd be a Calvinist too.

I challenge you, I dare you, to actually confront real scholarly non-Calvinistic views instead of these simpleton misrepresentations. When you can move beyond these shallow accusations and misrepresentation of what true Arminians believe and into a respectful and intelligent discussion let me know. And when you run across a non-Calvinists who says some of the ridiculous things you accuse them of saying just let me know and I'll be glad to correct them for misrepresenting Arminianism in the same way some here misrepresent mainstream Calvinistic views. Ok?

Where did I portray Arminianism soley? Who said non cals were trying to represent arminianism, in coming to their false assumptions? Not me. You? Indeed! Quit presuming. :smilewinkgrin:

How do you get so far off track? Where did I ever say this is the case? Unbelievable!!!!! (not really)

You dare me? :laugh:

You're saying the persons I've alluded to on here, as to what they've stated, as well as those to whom glfrederick also admitted seeing saying these things, are then "simpletons?" Really? I won't apologize for sticking to a strict context here. Can you do the same and actually argue within the framework of what I actually stated, without adding strawmen, little green army men, weeble-wobbles, and Power Rangers figures?

One of your glaring flaws is that you assume all I come against are in fact arminians, and only arminians. This is you fighting the wrong battle.

- In Love and Peace

 

[preacher4truth]

That is a given under the presumption that Calvinism is true. I'm asking why? Why do you suppose some of God's elect children "refuse to look at the issues" and go on thinking that "makes God seem unfair," while you don't? Is God not sovereign enough to bring all his children into correct understanding on this view of truth?


So, are you saying that Calvinistic believers are more humble and thus able to accept these thoughts? If so, where did you get your humility? From God, right? Why didn't he give it to all of his children?

Ok, but why? Are you smarter? More intelligent? More humble? What good do you have that you have not received and why wouldn't God grant that "good" to all his children? Why would he relegate some of us to view God wrongly and "less sovereignly" than other children?

You'll have to bring that up with God.

 

[Skandelon]

One of your glaring flaws is that you assume all I come against are in fact arminians, and only arminians. This is you fighting the wrong battle.

The label "arminian," (as discussed several times) is often used in a generic fashion to describe those who are "not Calvinistic." In the same manner the label "calvinist" is used even though there are various types and kinds of Calvinistic/reformed believers. Many, if not most, here reject the labels due to some of their connotations and various understood meanings. I presumed you understood that, but apparently not.

What theological system supports the guy who say men are "pretty good fellers" and I'll help you put them in their place!?! We'll actually be on the same side, like we are in the politics section!! Let's get 'em!!! :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

You'll have to bring that up with God.

I already did, but you won't want to hear what he told me. :saint:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Skan said....Ok, but why? Are you smarter? More intelligent? More humble? What good do you have that you have not received and why wouldn't God grant that "good" to all his children? Why would he relegate some of us to view God wrongly and "less sovereignly" than other children?

See now your turning this into a contest.....your original OP was to try to find commonality, but you should know what that is by now.... 1 John 5:11-12


11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

I would quit thinking that way (asking above questions like this) if I were you & opening your mind least people think your insecure. Im sure educated Arminians strive to think "outa da box", right? And brother, I would advise this to any Christian I speak to.

Blessings