Do you really understand your 'opponents' views?

[HeirofSalvation]

JBH since you have restated your views: I will again defend (for the most part) the accurracy of what I initially posted. Once the rhetorical flourishes and disclaimers are not included the basic statements I made are true...With a little editing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbh28
We believe that people reject God because they don't want to come to him,

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
God irreparably predestined them to be BORN in a condition wherein they by their very nature are inescapably predisposed to that end...

o.k we can split hairs...how about we modify "irreparably" to "decretally", but you then double-down:

Now, outside of God, of course it's irreparable. But God can redeem anyone.

You neglected to mention that God refuses of his own Soverign purposes to "repair" many of the incapably broken.

Man doesn't want to come to God. Even with the wonderful Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, man still rejects God.

I understood your compatibilism... I included the principle in my first quote: I repeat here:

BORN in a condition wherein they by their very nature are inescapably predisposed

note the word "predisposed"

Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
No, he is creating some irrevocably incapable of coming to him, and others irrresistably drawn to him.

No, people don't come to him because they choose to not come to him. They have no desire to come to Christ.

And why do they "choose" not too?.... because....

BORN in a condition wherein they by their very nature are inescapably predisposed

note the word "predisposed"

In addition to this, God could do this if He wanted to and would be just to do so. God is not obligated by any thing outside of himself to save anyone.

Right and everyone accepts this..... so what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbh28
What election does teach is that God is at the gate of heaven calling for all men everywhere to repent and come to him. All men turn their own way and reject him. He chooses some of these to save.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
Yes, that....and that he has no intention whatsoever of enabling the ones he doesn't feel like saving to respond possitively to his call.

Why not include that in the statement?
note this word in my post:

enabling

That is the real key: the Enabling is (acc. your view) God's sole and Sovereign decree is it not?

God has every intention of saving anyone that believes.

Here you Changed "all" to "anyone" see:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbh28
he has made an offer to all that believe.

Hence my initial response......that it was an opportunity for a Calvinist to positively use the word "all" and that you should take it when you get it.

God doesn't reject people that want to be saved.

.....and what, pray tell, is the mitigating factor in their desire to be saved?

Option B is there and he could choose it if he wanted to.

Does ANYONE in your view want to? if not Why not? Some obviously do....How does that happen?

God does not keep people from coming to him. HOS said that I believe God does.

I would be thrilled if you could quote where I said that, I would not say that. I know Calvinist doctrine (and its talking points) too well.

I honestly cannot see how your views were in any (accept for perhaps the most insignifigant of details) mis-represented. Granted, again, I stated them very disphemistically, and intentionally so. Because if some of the rhetorical flourish is removed, then people can get an honest picture of Calvinism in all of its splendour.

 

[jbh28]

JBH since you have restated your views: I will again defend (for the most part) the accurracy of what I initially posted. Once the rhetorical flourishes and disclaimers are not included the basic statements I made are true...With a little editing:



o.k we can split hairs...how about we modify "irreparably" to "decretally", but you then double-down:

You neglected to mention that God refuses of his own Soverign purposes to "repair" many of the incapably broken.

No, he doesn't refuse to save depraved people. You're saved right? You were broken. I was broken god saved me.

I understood your compatibilism... I included the principle in my first quote: I repeat here:
note the word "predisposed"



And why do they "choose" not too?.... because....
note the word "predisposed"

Desire.

Right and everyone accepts this..... so what?

You seemed to be implying the opposite in a sense. God would not be bad if he didn't save.

Why not include that in the statement?
note this word in my post:

That is the real key: the Enabling is (acc. your view) God's sole and Sovereign decree is it not?

Of why some come, sure. God enables them to come. (John 6)

Here you Changed "all" to "anyone" see:

Hence my initial response......that it was an opportunity for a Calvinist to positively use the word "all" and that you should take it when you get it.

All that believe and anyone that believes are synonymous.

.....and what, pray tell, is the mitigating factor in their desire to be saved?

Their sin gets in their way. They desire their sin more than God.

Does ANYONE in your view want to? if not Why not? Some obviously do....How does that happen?

The Spirit convicts their heart(John 16:9) and changes their heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh(Ex 36)

I would be thrilled if you could quote where I said that, I would not say that. I know Calvinist doctrine (and its talking points) too well.

I thought that the statement of "No, he is creating some irrevocably incapable of coming to him, and others irrresistably drawn to him." was saying that. If I misread you, sorry.

I honestly cannot see how your views were in any (accept for perhaps the most insignifigant of details) mis-represented. Granted, again, I stated them very disphemistically, and intentionally so. Because if some of the rhetorical flourish is removed, then people can get an honest picture of Calvinism in all of its splendour.

An honest picture of Calvinism is that you have depraved man that sins against God, but God in his loving mercy saves us even after we reject him.

My biggest problem with what you say is that it implies a very ugly picture of Calvinism, one which is not true.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Quote:
.....and what, pray tell, is the mitigating factor in their desire to be saved?

Their sin gets in their way. They desire their sin more than God.

I was asking about the mitigating factor in the redeemed's desire to actually accept or choose Christ, not the mitigating factor in the reprobate's choice to remain in a state of condemnation.

I thought that the statement of "No, he is creating some irrevocably incapable of coming to him, and others irrresistably drawn to him." was saying that. If I misread you, sorry.

Fair enough... I might have worded that differently to avoid confusion. I think I should have avoided the word "create".... as a.... gasp...... Molinist, I tend to like the word "actualized" more anyway.:laugh:

No, he doesn't refuse to save depraved people. You're saved right? You were broken. I was broken god saved me.

True enough, it is not an "active" refusal per se.... but it is kind of a "passive" by-pass which results in the same end no? I understand that a Calvinistic view likes to focus on the positive selection of the elect and not the by-passing of the reprobate...but it is a reality that must be addressed yes? By no means am I, or will I, insist that all forms of Calvinism must concede a "double-predestination". I would argue, I think, that the difference between active and passive predestination would be the key...thoughts? Would you say there is more to it than that?

Desire.

Yes, and they were "actualized" "created" "made" or "born" with that as an overwhelming factor yes?

You seemed to be implying the opposite

Quote:
Right and everyone accepts this..... so what?

I am not a Calvinist...therefore....I assume that I am included in the word "everyone"

An honest picture of Calvinism is that you have depraved man that sins against God, but God in his loving mercy saves us even after we reject him.

True True:thumbsup: Of course that is the gospel period yes? From any perspective?

Oh, and BTW... I am aware of the fact that I am rather rough and brash in my manner of speaking sometimes.....Well, I am passionate. After all I could have avoided saying:

I am not a Calvinist...therefore....I assume that I am included in the word "everyone"

And merely said: " Naturally, I was including myself" But honestly....honestly.... how could I POSSIBLY have resisted the overwhelming urge? It was just too EASY!...it was right THERE! You GAVE it to me!!!! AAARRRRGGGHHH:BangHead:

 

[jbh28]

Oh, and BTW... I am aware of the fact that I am rather rough and brash in my manner of speaking sometimes.....Well, I am passionate.

Understand as I can be too.

 

[Skandelon]

This is all boiled down to the ability to desire something. Calvinists don't believe mankind has the ability to desire God's appeal to be reconciled, we do. Agree or disagree and why?

 

[Herald]

"To God belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth. Whether ye show what is in your minds or conceal it, God Calleth you to account for it. He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and punisheth whom He pleaseth, for God hath power over all things. " The Holy Quran 5:18

If Arminianism or non-Calvinism is "semi-Pelagianism" Then Calvinism is semi-Islam.

Accusations like that Herald are pure well-poisoning, fruitless and informally logically fallacious at best; and un-Christian at worst.

I think a nerve was struck. Semi-Pelagianism is as semi-Pelagianism does. If you believe man cooperates with God in salvation then you are espousing semi-Pelagian doctrine. You may deny it. You may even hold to sound orthodox teaching for the majority of your theology, but on the issue of soteriology you would be partnering with God.

Your attempt at drawing a parallel between Islam and the doctrines of grace doesn't even get out of the starting gate. There's a reason it is called "the doctrines of grace" as opposed to the doctrines of fatalism. Reformed theology does not emasculate the will of man - it liberates it. Even the semi-Pelagian has to eventually agree that there is a limit to how far he can exercise his will. The distinction is that the Reformed Christian believes that freedom of the will is accomplished at the moment of regeneration whereas the semi-Pelagian believes it was free before salvation*.

*I use "freedom of the will" in the positive sense, not negative. In Reformed Theology the will is considered bound prior to salvation and is in no-wise free.

 

[Herald]

What is it with you and all of these "confessions" and 'creeds"

Were you a Catholic at one time?

Confessions are man's words. Why dont you try God's Words?

John

Once you express your opinion on the Word of God you have introduced "man's word." If we really want to preserve the purity of the Bible we should all remain silent and not offer an opinion. After all, if we comment on the Bible we are adding our own words.

The creeds and confessions were written at the end of long and arduous sessions. During these sessions men of God debated, discussed, and reasoned together. Collectively they wrote down their agreement on some of the great doctrines of the faith. These writings are not Scripture, but to the extent that they offer accurate commentary they are a faithful tool to the Church. Among the Reformed community there is a distinction made between catholic (general) confessions and Roman Catholic confessions.

 

[convicted1]

:thumbsup: Well said Willis!

You do realize Brother, that by we agreeing on this subject, it does not bode well for either of us? :laugh: :wavey: :love2:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think a nerve was struck. Semi-Pelagianism is as semi-Pelagianism does. If you believe man cooperates with God in salvation then you are espousing semi-Pelagian doctrine. You may deny it. You may even hold to sound orthodox teaching for the majority of your theology, but on the issue of soteriology you would be partnering with God.

Your attempt at drawing a parallel between Islam and the doctrines of grace doesn't even get out of the starting gate. There's a reason it is called "the doctrines of grace" as opposed to the doctrines of fatalism. Reformed theology does not emasculate the will of man - it liberates it. Even the semi-Pelagian has to eventually agree that there is a limit to how far he can exercise his will. The distinction is that the Reformed Christian believes that freedom of the will is accomplished at the moment of regeneration whereas the semi-Pelagian believes it was free before salvation*.

*I use "freedom of the will" in the positive sense, not negative. In Reformed Theology the will is considered bound prior to salvation and is in no-wise free.

Semantics only. Reformed theology is deterministic and fatalistic. It is a complete fallacy to state that Reformed theology liberates the will of man. So, after regeneration, a person is free to later reject salvation? Yeah, Reformed theology frees the will, alright.

 

[Iconoclast]

Just a quick observation: As a Baptist...I am by definition...non-credal Although not inherently wrong per se.....What is with all of this incessant "catechism" ..."confessions".."historic faith" etc.....What Baptist really gives a (*&%&^ about that stuff? ICON...are you a Baptist? I assume you are...and I don't mean to say that these creeds of yours don't have intellectual value...but do you realize that to many Baptists... all we begin to hear is: "The Holy Mother Church-by the Authority of God's vicarious representative of Jesus Christ on Earth-His Holiness-Pope UglyHat the XVI, has decreed unto us that.....blah blah blah"
This is not meant to be insulting...I just think that tends to be somewhat ineffective...Baptists don't just incidentally not use creeds...they HATE and FEAR them. I know that for my part.. I begin to hear the "The Westminster confession says....":sleep:

I had posted this earlier for seekingtruth...I will re-post it for you now:
Quote:
17
INTRODUCTION
Scriptures
“Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest
thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest
they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach
them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons…the LORD said unto
me…I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to
fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that
they may teach their children.” Deut. 4:9–10
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in
thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy
children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a
sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between
thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy
house, and on thy gates.” Deut. 6:4–9
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16–17
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2
Tim. 2:15
“…ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Eph. 6:4
The Term “Catechize”
The English word “catechism” is derived from the Gk. verb katēchēo, “to
resound, teach orally, instruct by mouth.” This term originally had the idea of
“speaking down or from above” i.e., from actors on an elevated stage. It is a
compound of the preposition kata, “down, throughout, thoroughly” and the
verb ēchēo, “to sound,” the source of our English word, “echo.” There seems
to be in this etymology the idea of a responsive answer. Catechizing has the
connotation of thorough or repeated oral instruction, and is only one of
several related terms for instruction or teaching found in Scripture.

The term
itself occurs eight times in the New Testament (twice as “informed” in Acts
21:21, 24, referring to word–of–mouth information):
“That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou
hast been catechized.” Luke 1:4.18
“This man had been constantly catechized in the way of the Lord;
and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the
things of the Lord...” Acts 18:25.
“And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more
excellent, being constantly catechized out of the law...” Romans
2:18.
“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that by my voice I might catechize others also, than
ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” 1 Cor. 14:19.
“Let him who is being catechized in the word communicate unto him
who catechizes in all good things.” Gal. 6:6.C. H. Spurgeon on Catechizing





Quote:
QUESTION 1: Why use a catechism?
ANSWER: There are several reasons why churches, families and individuals
should make good use of a suitable catechism:
1. The use of a catechism is scriptural in principle and is based upon the
Divine mandate for biblical instruction in the Old Testament and also
the inspired example of the New Testament (Deut. 4:9–10; 6:4–9; Lk.
1:4; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 6:1–4). The question–and–answer format of
modern catechisms is incidental to the pervading scriptural principle
23
of catechizing, which evidently consisted of repetitive oral
instruction, commitment to memory and an oral response.



Quote:
Some Objections Against Catechizing Answered
OBJECTION ONE: Why, as Baptists, use a catechism? Do not catechisms
belong only to the Romanists, Lutherans or Reformed Christians? We have
only one creed—the Bible! We will not and cannot put any literature on
par with the Scriptures, or add to the Word of God in any way.



Quote:
Baptists used catechisms extensively and with much spiritual profit
until the past century. This objection itself demonstrates the sad
departure of some Baptists from their own doctrinal distinctives and
practice, and the ignorance of some modern Baptists concerning their
own history and spiritual heritage. Following are some of the more
well–known catechisms written and used by Baptists:
• Henry Jessey, Particular Baptist, A Catechism for Babes, or Little
Ones, 1652.
• Hercules Collins, Particular Baptist, The Orthodox Catechism
(adapted from the Heidelberg Catechism), 1680.
• Thomas Grantham, General Baptist, St. Paul’s Catechism (based
on the six principles of Hebrews 6), 1687.
• Benjamin Keach and William Collins, The Baptist Catechism,
1693.
• The Philadelphia Baptist Association of Particular Baptists
published a catechism appended to their Philadelphia Confession
of Faith, 1742.
• William Gadsby, Gospel Standard Baptist, published a catechism
entitled The Things Most Surely Believed Among Us, 1809.
• C. H. Spurgeon published A Baptist Catechism (compiled from
the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Keach’s Baptist
Catechism), 1855.
• The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention
published two catechisms: the first by J. P. Boyce, A Brief
Catechism of Bible Doctrine (1864) and the second by John A.
Broadus (1892). The latter work was jointly published by both the
Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist
Publication Society.


As a Baptist ...I always recommend this one for everyone;
http://www.lulu.com/shop/w-r-downing...F9CD305848B0AF

PS....did someone buy you a thesaurus for Christmas????

I have decidedly phrased Calvinist teaching disphemistically

__________________
All that die have not the plague, and all that
perish eternally are not guilty of the same profligate sins.The covetous are
excluded from the kingdom of God no less severely than fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, and thieves, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Iconoclast; Yesterday at 04:58 PM.

 

[Iconoclast]

IMHO

Your problem, as with most Calvinists, is that you put too much trust and faith in 'confessions", "Cathechism's" and men like Luther and Calvin.

Why dont you just try the Bible?

John

God has given Godly teachers to teach....that implies learners,students, disciples.

John...as you try "just the bible" feel free to interact and correct any of the posted confessions or cathechisms......Did you read my answer to you on this??? Cathechising is biblical instruction;

Quote:
17
INTRODUCTION
Scriptures
“Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest
thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest
they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach
them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons…the LORD said unto
me…I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to
fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that
they may teach their children.” Deut. 4:9–10
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in
thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy
children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a
sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between
thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy
house, and on thy gates.” Deut. 6:4–9
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16–17
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2
Tim. 2:15
“…ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Eph. 6:4
The Term “Catechize”
The English word “catechism” is derived from the Gk. verb katēchēo, “to
resound, teach orally, instruct by mouth.” This term originally had the idea of
“speaking down or from above” i.e., from actors on an elevated stage. It is a
compound of the preposition kata, “down, throughout, thoroughly” and the
verb ēchēo, “to sound,” the source of our English word, “echo.” There seems
to be in this etymology the idea of a responsive answer. Catechizing has the
connotation of thorough or repeated oral instruction, and is only one of
several related terms for instruction or teaching found in Scripture. The term
itself occurs eight times in the New Testament (twice as “informed” in Acts
21:21, 24, referring to word–of–mouth information):
“That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou
hast been catechized.” Luke 1:4.18
“This man had been constantly catechized in the way of the Lord;
and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the
things of the Lord...” Acts 18:25.
“And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more
excellent, being constantly catechized out of the law...” Romans
2:18.
“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that by my voice I might catechize others also, than
ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” 1 Cor. 14:19.
“Let him who is being catechized in the word communicate unto him
who catechizes in all good things.” Gal. 6:6.C. H. Spurgeon on Catechizing





Quote:
QUESTION 1: Why use a catechism?
ANSWER: There are several reasons why churches, families and individuals
should make good use of a suitable catechism:
1. The use of a catechism is scriptural in principle and is based upon the
Divine mandate for biblical instruction in the Old Testament and also
the inspired example of the New Testament (Deut. 4:9–10; 6:4–9; Lk.
1:4; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 6:1–4). The question–and–answer format of
modern catechisms is incidental to the pervading scriptural principle
23
of catechizing, which evidently consisted of repetitive oral
instruction, commitment to memory and an oral response.



Quote:
Some Objections Against Catechizing Answered
OBJECTION ONE: Why, as Baptists, use a catechism? Do not catechisms
belong only to the Romanists, Lutherans or Reformed Christians? We have
only one creed—the Bible! We will not and cannot put any literature on
par with the Scriptures, or add to the Word of God in any way.



Quote:
Baptists used catechisms extensively and with much spiritual profit
until the past century. This objection itself demonstrates the sad
departure of some Baptists from their own doctrinal distinctives and
practice, and the ignorance of some modern Baptists concerning their
own history and spiritual heritage. Following are some of the more
well–known catechisms written and used by Baptists:
• Henry Jessey, Particular Baptist, A Catechism for Babes, or Little
Ones, 1652.
• Hercules Collins, Particular Baptist, The Orthodox Catechism
(adapted from the Heidelberg Catechism), 1680.
• Thomas Grantham, General Baptist, St. Paul’s Catechism (based
on the six principles of Hebrews 6), 1687.
• Benjamin Keach and William Collins, The Baptist Catechism,
1693.
• The Philadelphia Baptist Association of Particular Baptists
published a catechism appended to their Philadelphia Confession
of Faith, 1742.
• William Gadsby, Gospel Standard Baptist, published a catechism
entitled The Things Most Surely Believed Among Us, 1809.
• C. H. Spurgeon published A Baptist Catechism (compiled from
the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Keach’s Baptist
Catechism), 1855.
• The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention
published two catechisms: the first by J. P. Boyce, A Brief
Catechism of Bible Doctrine (1864) and the second by John A.
Broadus (1892). The latter work was jointly published by both the
Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist
Publication Society.


As a Baptist ...I always recommend this one for everyone;
http://www.lulu.com/shop/w-r-downing...F9CD305848B0AF
__________________
All that die have not the plague, and all that
perish eternally are not guilty of the same profligate sins.The covetous are
excluded from the kingdom of God no less severely than fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, and thieves, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Iconoclast; Yesterday at 04:58 PM.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Herald

There's a reason it is called "the doctrines of grace"

There is indeed:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism

 

[Iconoclast]

Semantics only. Reformed theology is deterministic and fatalistic. It is a complete fallacy to state that Reformed theology liberates the will of man. So, after regeneration, a person is free to later reject salvation? Yeah, Reformed theology frees the will, alright.

Heralds post agrees with Jesus teaching.....

31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

So, after regeneration, a person is free to later reject salvation

Regenerate people are free to serve God...they are not free to sin!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Heralds post agrees with Jesus teaching.....



16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.



Regenerate people are free to serve God...they are not free to sin!

The verses you post do not support Herald's post or Reformed theology. I don't know how anyone could see Reformed theology in any of these verses.

I agree with your last sentence, btw.

 

[Iconoclast]

Herald


There is indeed:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism

The end result is a lot of confusion, misdirection, and sometimes outright lies (though I will clarify the lie point at the end). What you usually have is what is known as poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is essentially creating a bias before any real conversation has taken place. For instance, the term "Doctrines of Grace" implies that other theologies don't really promote grace. While most Calvinists do believe this, by renaming Calvinism, one is now forcing the other side to argue against the "Doctrines of Grace" and making it sound as if the person is arguing against grace itself.

This isn't to say that Calvinists are being dishonest (though it has happened). What I am saying is that Arminians should be aware that when we allow this sort of language to happen, we are allowing them to choose the battleground, so to speak. We need to break much of this language apart, and not allow one side of the argument to own biblical words like "sovereignty," "grace," and even "predestination." We need to understand how these terms relate to Arminianism itself, and keep hammering that home.

For instance, the term "Doctrines of Grace" implies that other theologies don't really promote grace. While most Calvinists do believe this, by renaming Calvinism, one is now forcing the other side to argue against the "Doctrines of Grace" and making it sound as if the person is arguing against grace itself.

That is because they are!
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

The terms pelagianism, and semi-peligianism come to us in a historical context...not in a vacuum....

 

[Iconoclast]

The verses you post do not support Herald's post or Reformed theology. I don't know how anyone could see Reformed theology in any of these verses.

I agree with your last sentence, btw.

Because reformed theology gives a biblical view of mans condition since the fall. Romans 6 says that men are willing bondslaves to sin:thumbs:

When God sets a man "free' of this bondage..he becomes the willing bondslave of righteousness .

16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That is because they are!

No, Icon..... They are arguing against YOUR PARTICULAR CONCEPT OF COVENANT THEOLOGY. Seriously, ask the Lvl. 55 Calvinist clerics in the smoke-filled rooms and they will admit that to a great degree... its just a rhetorical device. They wouldn't admit it to me, but they would to you I think.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

And.....I will submit some equally germaine verses to support Arminianism/Calvinism/Dispensationalism/Manicheanism...heck pick one:

14And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, 15Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. 16And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded. 17And these were the sons of Levi by their names; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari. 18And these are the names of the sons of Gershon by their families; Libni, and Shimei. 19And the sons of Kohath by their families; Amram, and Izehar, Hebron, and Uzziel. 20And the sons of Merari by their families; Mahli, and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to the house of their fathers.

21Of Gershon was the family of the Libnites, and the family of the Shimites: these are the families of the Gershonites. 22Those that were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, even those that were numbered of them were seven thousand and five hundred. 23The families of the Gershonites shall pitch behind the tabernacle westward. 24And the chief of the house of the father of the Gershonites shall be Eliasaph the son of Lael.

25And the charge of the sons of Gershon in the tabernacle of the congregation shall be the tabernacle, and the tent, the covering thereof, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, 26And the hangings of the court, and the curtain for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about, and the cords of it for all the service thereof.

The terms pelagianism, and semi-peligianism come to us in a historical context...not in a vacuum....

UHHH...Yeah....Conveniently...They come to us in the context of a man who was dubbed a heretic By the RCC (as though that means anything). HONESTLY Icon please answer me this question....If Pelagius were vindicated...and declared a Saint: Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE Cals would be using that comparison to refer to non-cals?

 

[Yeshua1]

Would those of you who would consider yourself Calvinistic agree or disagree with this assessment, and why?

"Critics of Arminianism tend to portray the Arminian view of election in this way: God elects to salvation those whom He knows will believe anyway, therefore election is basically meaningless. God's election is conditional on what human beings will choose to do: He just elects those who elect themselves--in fact, this view makes Him powerless to save anyone without their cooperation. The sacrifice of Jesus is not sufficient to save; it must be mixed with the individual's faith in order to be effective. The believer becomes his own co-savior and robs glory for salvation that is due to God. He gives himself a means of boasting, even though the Bible says to "let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."

How would you define Arminianism?

 

[gb93433]

I could spend my entire life studying what opponents believe and never know what scripture teaches. Why study error? I must study scripture to know the truth.

Years ago my employer asked me a question, "How do you tell a crooked stick? I gave him an answer and then he said, "You lay a straight one next to it." In my work I employ standards that everything else is tested against.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I could spend my entire life studying what opponents believe and never know what scripture teaches. Why study error? I must study scripture to know the truth.

Years ago my employer asked me a question, "How do you tell a crooked stick? I gave him an answer and then he said, "You lay a straight one next to it." In my work I employ standards that everything else is tested against.

But what if you can't tell a straight stick in order to lay it next to the crooked one? Maybe you lay a crooked one next to it. Oh, never mind.