COMMON-ground?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

Are you sure then it was Him?

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

Completely Bogus.

 

[Skandelon]

Im back! Have we achieved any common ground yet?

Yes, we all have access to computers with internet access. :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

Completely Bogus.

That's excactly why I asked him to quit misrepping me! Thank you! :love2:

 

[Skandelon]

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.....

Not at all. This is a ligament question often posed even in scholarly debates on the subject. It brings into light the difficulty surrounding the concept that contra-causal free will is somehow a logical impossibility.

It also helps Calvinists to consider that God may have "put us non-Calvinists" in their lives for a reason. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, we all have access to computers with internet access. :laugh:

This is true!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not at all. This is a ligament question often posed even in scholarly debates on the subject. It brings into light the difficulty surrounding the concept that contra-causal free will is somehow a logical impossibility.

It also helps Calvinists to consider that God may have "put us non-Calvinists" in their lives for a reason. :smilewinkgrin:

Ive said this before but its to have competition because that puts each side to its mettle, cautions each to tolerance & gives to our frail minds other ideas to contemplate. All in all we serve a very intelligent God. :godisgood::laugh::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Are you sure then it was Him?

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure. He started the conversation with, "I love John Calvin, BUT...." :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JesusFan]

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:

Please answer this...

Since All of us have fallen short of glory of God, ALL of us deserve to be condemned...

Why does God have to save ANY of us thean?

IF He chooses to save ANY, isn't that sufficient?

 

[quantumfaith]

That's excactly why I asked him to quit misrepping me! Thank you! :love2:

I apologize for responding in shrillness. I will say I personally get frustrated at times because it "seems to me" that you often respond to posts tangentially not reading the meaning and intent of a post. Then it just seems as if everyone wants to "duke it out". This is not where I or you or anyone should be.

 

[Aaron]

,

He's a lot closer than that to me. You cannot be "in Christ" or have an intimate relationship from across a mountain.,,,,

And yet, the Person and Atonement you describe are not the ones we read of in the Scriptures.

 

[humblethinker]

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

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

EWF, Please note P4T's response:

You'll have to bring that up with God.

Seeing that P4T seems to have answered Skan's questions in the affirmative I believe this justifies Skan asking these questions. If Skan would have thought what you suggested then we might never have been able to know how P4T thinks about that topic. Would you prefer that we all not know how P4T thought about those questions? Did you already know that P4T felt that way and just didn't want him to come out and admit such a thing? Would you or any calvinist on this BB agree with P4T?

 

[Skandelon]

Please answer this...

Since All of us have fallen short of glory of God, ALL of us deserve to be condemned...

Why does God have to save ANY of us thean?

IF He chooses to save ANY, isn't that sufficient?

I think I've answered this before when I wrote:

"The wonder of God's mercy and grace is NOT that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves ANYONE!"

This is the very essence of what I believe, even as a non-Calvinist. God is not in any way morally obligated to save anyone because we deserve it. Again, this is a point upon which we can all agree.

However, God has obligated Himself, both morally and judicially, to save whosoever will come (believe). Not because they deserve it, but because He sent forth His Son to be a propitiation for sins of whole world, which is to be applied only through faith. His universal call to "every creature" to faith and repentance obligates him to save whosoever repents and believes. The doctrine that teaches that God only grants this ability to willingly repent and believe to a select few while appearing to call "every creature" is what causes the non-Calvinists to cry, "Foul!"

I don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. We believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granted a few of them the ability to receive it, all the while expressing a desire for all to come to repentance and a frustration for those who remain unwilling.

It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers natural abilities. That type of offer cannot be geniune!

 

[preacher4truth]

I apologize for responding in shrillness. I will say I personally get frustrated at times because it "seems to me" that you often respond to posts tangentially not reading the meaning and intent of a post. Then it just seems as if everyone wants to "duke it out". This is not where I or you or anyone should be.

Obviously you overlook where I am misrepresented. This is why, and the only reason why, I am duking it out.

I have a brother misrepresenting me, adding to what I've said, and accusing me of calling others salvation "works based."

Re-read and see that I never once claimed, nor hinted at claiming in my stating what others say, that they are in fact representing Arminianism. This is how I am erroneously misrepresented in one way, and this is a strawman argument, completely out of context and unnecessary.

Secondly, take time to read that I never claimed such persons are in fact saving themselves, as I have been slanderously reported to have said. That is unfortunate and uncalled for.

Now, if one could simply stick to what is actually said, then, well, we could have dialogue. Only after one apologizes for saying I accused others of saving themselves of course. This type of twisting needs to end.

- Peace

 

[JesusFan]

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?

Well...

Answer this please...

Did God chose Abram to serve Him due to inate goodness of the pagen, or JUST because God elected Him to establish His plan to be fulfilled in the coming of the messiah eventually to earth?

 

[preacher4truth]

EWF, Please note P4T's response:

Seeing that P4T seems to have answered Skan's questions in the affirmative I believe this justifies Skan asking these questions. If Skan would have thought what you suggested then we might never have been able to know how P4T thinks about that topic. Would you prefer that we all not know how P4T thought about those questions? Did you already know that P4T felt that way and just didn't want him to come out and admit such a thing? Would you or any calvinist on this BB agree with P4T?

I simply stated that he needs to take that up with God. Not that I am agreeing these things to be true. So you are incorrect.

After all, he has some apologizing to do to me.

 

[Skandelon]

And yet, the Person and Atonement you describe are not the ones we read of in the Scriptures.

Aaron, with all due respect brother, what purpose do comments like this serve except to inflame by not all that subtly implying that we can't have a relationship with Christ if we don't agree with your theological system. You don't present any argumentation, scripture or even philosophical reasoning to make a case for your views. Instead, you just make implications about the salvation (or lack thereof) of those with whom you disagree. I sincerely and respectfully request that you stop doing that.

 

[humblethinker]

I simply stated that he needs to take that up with God. Not that I am agreeing these things to be true. So you are incorrect.

Why should Skan expect God to tell him what you think instead you just telling him? Obviously, someone asking you "Why is it this way?" (as Skan did) and then you telling him "Take it up with God.", obviously means something to the effect of "that is the way it is, don't ask me, you take it up with God."
:BangHead:

 

[Skandelon]

After all, he has some apologizing to do to me.

You may be right. Those people out there somewhere who believe fallen humanity are really "pretty good fellers" and "seek God" on their own without His initiation would be greatly offended if you thought they also "saved themselves." I apologize for implying that you believed those people think they "save themselves."

When you said, "they went to the polls, an via free-will voted for God, all on their own goodness and ability," I'm sure you didn't mean they were using their goodness to cast a free-will vote for God in a saving manner and so I'm sure that was a complete misrepresentation of what you really meant when you said that about these nebulous folks.

So, I apologize for misrepresenting your views about Baptist believers who don't exist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

Why should Skan expect God to tell him what you think instead you just telling him? Obviously, someone asking you "Why is it this way?" (as Skan did) and then you telling him "Take it up with God.", obviously means something to the effect of "that is the way it is, don't ask me, you take it up with God."
:BangHead:

I've explained myself, yet you must continue to hold that what you got out of it is correct.

Don't hurt your head, you may need to use it again.