-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Consider the Potters Pots
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: As many may properly understand, this thread was developed to expose the contradictory ideas of many men, men that claim to deny a limited atonement yet hold to election and OSAS.
When I challenged some on another thread as to the glaring inconsistency of the denial of limited atonement by (ACCORDING TO SOME ON THIS LIST) Charles Stanley and others, while they maintain beliefs in election, OSAS, and man having nothing to do with their salvation, those that took exception the loudest have became amazingly silent. Is there not one of those that so valiantly defended Charles Stanley or others with like ideas, that could explain to us why limited atonement is not a logical and necessitated end of the very notions they do claim to hold to, and to deny a limited atonement, while at the same time stating that man has nothing to do with their salvation, is irrefutably inconsistent and contradictory?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I have to agree that once you claim that salvation is via an unconditional grace that choose some and rejects others - (so no universal salvation in a "God is the only one making choices" model) the limited atonement is the logical conclusion.
However what if Stanley is 3 point Calvinist! What if he rejects the unconditional election (arbitrary selection) model and adopts the same view as Arminians -- "God draws ALL" and "God LOVES all".
then where is your charge against Stanley's "logic"? (If indeed he rejects limite atonement)
However what if Stanley is 3 point Calvinist! What if he rejects the unconditional election (arbitrary selection) model and adopts the same view as Arminians -- "God draws ALL" and "God LOVES all".
then where is your charge against Stanley's "logic"? (If indeed he rejects limite atonement)
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan said:
Charles Stanley is an antinomian at best. Charles Stanley is about as far from being a Calvinist as you are Bob.
It's a moot point to wonder if he was a "3 pointer" because he's not. Even if he was, he'd be as inconsistant as he is now. Ther'd be no difference, he'd be wrong if so, he'd be wrong if not.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: When one accepts the literal payment theory, in that man has nothing to do with ones salvation, salvation being all of God and none of man, the ‘cause’ of salvation has to lie only in the sovereignty of God. If that is true, and it is also true that universalism is in error, one has of necessity accepted both limited atonement and unconditional election in spite of any lip service to the contrary.
OSAS is built upon the notion that man has nothing to do with their salvation, and has nothing to do with keeping it, and can do nothing to do to lose it. Again, when one makes salvation all of God and none of man, all notions of failure to believe in limited atonement and or unconditional election is nothing short of trying to balance glaring contradictions. One cannot avoid the necessitated absurdities that in this case are the unavoidable end of ones doctrinal beliefs.
We can have many uncertainties within our theology, but never should one allow glaring absurdities to exist within ones theology.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Antinomianism IS the necessitated end of Calvinism. Show us how, in your own mind, Charles Stanley differs from any other Calvinist being antimonian. Sure, I am certain he would desire to distance himself from at least some of the illogical ends of Calvinism, but with his complete acceptance of OSAS that is simply logically impossible.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
It depends on how you define your terms - I know that 3 point Calvinists do argue AGAINST unconditional election ( which is in fact the HEART of the "ALL of God" argument from a 4 and 5 point Calvinist POV). So using that definition - it would appear he rejects your premise.
Now THERE is insight sir!!
IF you make man (even in his acceptance of salvation) a "factor" in the outcome that CONNECTS to God - that is "salvation"
"To as many as BELIEVED TO THEM He gave the right to be called..." Etc
"If ANYONE hears AND OPENS the door then I WILL come in and we will fellowship" etc.
"for with the heart a person BELIEVES RESULTING in ..." Rom 10
Then MAN can ALSO be a "factor" in the outcome that would DISCONNECT
Your point then is that ARMINIANs have NO basis for believing in OSAS even though many do anyway no matter how that CONTRADICTS the foundation of their beliefs when it comes to the Arminian POV.
Your point is ALSO that 3 Point Calvinists have NO BASI for OSAS even though all of them do believe OSAS anyway.
Your point is valid!!
Well said. Now the reader has to ask himself - how is it that a Calvinist and an Arminian - who hold view about as far apart as you can get on this - would find in this single area COMPLETE agreement!!
Surely you have to wonder at the blinded state in BOTH the Arminian and Cavlinist camps that would NOT see this glaring contradiction being held to by BOTH Arminians and 3 Point Calvinists today.
In Christ,
Bob
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: How can that be so? I thought you told me that a three pointer believed in TUP? Now you appear to be saying that a three pointer is really a two pointer?
The idea of an Arminian holding to OSAS is completely foreign to my mind. I have been around Arminians all my life and have never met one that would claim to hold to OSAS. You must associate with some strange Arminians.
HP: No, my point is that a three point Calvinist is in reality a five point Calvinist in denial, and as such have every basis to hold to OSAS being a true Calvinist at heart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
OK, Charles Stanley is quoted somewhere (in his book about eternal security, I guess) that a person can profess Christ is God at one time in thier life, then denouce Christ and become a Muslim, and still be saved, based on that past confession. No Calvinists I have ever read claim such a thing. He believes that one's outward profession of faith makes one saved, no matter how much in thier later life they rail against it. Clearly, that teaching is not orthdox in the least.
Soli Deo Glroria,
Dustin
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: In the past I have heard CS imply the same ideas. You imply that is not ‘orthodox.’ What do you see as the orthodox position?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Why would a five point Calvinist, believing in a limited atonement that is unconditional, irresistible, and is from eternity past to eternity future secure, find any problems with CS? I don’t understand your disagreement to what he says.
GE:BobRyan said:
(Kindly disagree without NAME calling)!
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
If there was ever a post that needs some editing by the moderators, the last post by GE does. Thanks.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
GE seems to complain when facts are brought to light that he finds inconvenient.
But 4 Point Calvinists "exist" friends - as hard as that may be for some people to accept.
The "saved then forget" equivalent to "fire and forget" doctrine is consistently taught by 4 Pointers that reject perseverance.
Amazingly some Arminians cling to that idea no matter how inconsistent it is for them to do so!
In Christ,
Bob
But 4 Point Calvinists "exist" friends - as hard as that may be for some people to accept.
The "saved then forget" equivalent to "fire and forget" doctrine is consistently taught by 4 Pointers that reject perseverance.
Amazingly some Arminians cling to that idea no matter how inconsistent it is for them to do so!
In Christ,
Bob
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
GE:
I won't apologise or retract in any way.
It is sickening to partake in this conversation -- worsened by an idiom unknown to me. So on this thread you have got rid of me, one Calvinist, at least.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: My comments were not about getting rid of someone, or even hoping to do that. I was of the opinion that personal attacks are unjustified and not allowed on this board. I was personally hoping that you might take it upon yourself to retract or edit your attacks. That does not seem to be within what you or the moderators of this board deem as appropriate.
For what it is worth, I personally see this as an inconsistent way of moderating the rules of this board, and not in keeping with Christian charity, on the part of GE or the moderators.
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
There's a little yellow triangle with a "!" in it in the right hand corner of every post, if you find something posted offensive, report it.
A while ago I did a lot of complaining about another member who got banned for,IMO, no good reason but that he was a Calvinist, and he wasn't very tolerant of any other view. I hold that stance as well, I'm becoming more intolerant everyday, but I know that is a good thing. But there are certain ways to be intolerant here, and if you do so while comforming to the rules these nice people have set forth, there will be no problem.
Nay, nothing else will be heeded except using the report button and/or going to one of the moderators that looks after this part of the board.
Might I remind everyone that a few board members were booted earlier this year because of flagrant rule breaking, they DO ban people here. I might also add that the 3 that come to mind deserved what they got. I think there are a few that still need to be suspended or banned, but I'm not a moderator and I can't make those decisions. The rules here are more than fair and it is a very hard to get kicked off of here. This is a Christian messege board, and we are to act like Christians. People lurk here all the time, they read our posts, and I think we should take the utmost care in making sure we're posting with grace, and not some wild emotional argument. I've been gullty of such and I've learned that if it comes to that, one needs to take a break from the action for a while for the sake of those who might read this.
My point: either report the posts, or stop complaining, because it doesn't help anything. Take your pick. I learned my lesson a few months ago.
Ok, aside from that rant, I'm going to take leave from the board for a while. I'm planning my wedding, and I've got a lot to do at my job, and these are things that need a lot of time and attention. I'll be lurking around though. I ask for prayers from those who will pray for me, it's a tough time, lots of work to do. May you all post with grace, and may the discussion be lively and edifying and Christ glorifying.
God bless you, goodnight.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin