Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wow, the other day I critiqued Roman Catholics for being "Christ Plus" (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist etc) for their salvation theology. As for me, my faith insists that salvation is by grace alone(sola gratia) but the only way thing that can replace salvation by grace alone is salvation by "Grace Plus" human effort. Hmmmmm.....

 

[Benjamin]

Wow, the other day I critiqued Roman Catholics for being "Christ Plus" (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist etc) for their salvation theology. As for me, my faith insists that salvation is by grace alone(sola gratia) but the only way thing that can replace salvation by grace alone is salvation by "Grace Plus" human effort. Hmmmmm.....

Quit yer whining. I offered you all a title. If the shoe fits wear it, if not I'm really curious as to why it doesn't fit. I'm not asking you to defend your doctrine.

 

[agedman]

I would say the title you offer me is not a true statement, the tiltle I offer you is. IOW's you suggested my doctrine equals something it does not, what does the title I offered you suggest that is not true according to you?

The enormous amounts of thread posts in support of the Arminian view shows the exact statement, as I posted it, is factual.

Arminians have consistently stated that in effect God is impotent. That until man decides to activate their own self-generated faith and of their own free will and by their own free choice to accept or reject salvation a person is not saved. No wonder the ultimate end is no real eternal security and easy believism.

There is not one place in the Arminian view as posted on the bb for God to be the author and finisher as the scriptures teach, the provider of the faith as the scriptures teach, and the instigator of regeneration that allows the person to even be aware and capable of true Godly sorrow as the scriptures teach.

However you might brand the Calvinistic thinking, at least there is no lack of Scriptural support in both the original and the English languages, and it doesn't ignore the context of the verses.

I don't know how many times I have seen others having to correct an Arminian post because the supporter of the Arminian view stripped the context away and considered the verse would support the thinking.

 

[Benjamin]

Blah, blah, blah
However you might brand the Calvinistic thinking,...
blah, blah, blah

Brand it for what it is, or not??? You didn't answer the question.

Originally Posted by Benjamin
I would say the title you offer me is not a true statement, the tiltle I offer you is. IOW's you suggested my doctrine equals something it does not, what does the title I offered you suggest that is not true according to you?

Again,

"Quit yer whining. I offered you all a title. If the shoe fits wear it, if not I'm really curious as to why it doesn't fit. I'm not asking you to defend your doctrine."

The Op asks for title, I think the one I offered accurately describes your view, if not, why not? Simply tell me what is inaccurate about the title I offered.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Quit yer whining. I offered you all a title. If the shoe fits wear it, if not I'm really curious as to why it doesn't fit. I'm not asking you to defend your doctrine.

Sure....as long as you promise to take a long walk off a short pier..:tongue3: I personally view your groups perspective as anthropocentric vs our theocentric prospective.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The enormous amounts of thread posts in support of the Arminian view shows the exact statement, as I posted it, is factual.

Arminians have consistently stated that in effect God is impotent. That until man decides to activate their own self-generated faith and of their own free will and by their own free choice to accept or reject salvation a person is not saved. No wonder the ultimate end is no real eternal security and easy believism.

There is not one place in the Arminian view as posted on the bb for God to be the author and finisher as the scriptures teach, the provider of the faith as the scriptures teach, and the instigator of regeneration that allows the person to even be aware and capable of true Godly sorrow as the scriptures teach.

However you might brand the Calvinistic thinking, at least there is no lack of Scriptural support in both the original and the English languages, and it doesn't ignore the context of the verses.

I don't know how many times I have seen others having to correct an Arminian post because the supporter of the Arminian view stripped the context away and considered the verse would support the thinking.

SPOT ON!:thumbs:

 

[Benjamin]

Sure....as long as you promise to take a long walk off a short pier..:tongue3: I personally view your groups perspective as anthropocentric vs our theocentric prospective.

I don't care what you think of my view, that is not the point of the tread. Seems you all are trying to avoid a simple a question here with a bunch of rhetoric. Hmmmm lol.

If you forgot the question, post #64

 

[preacher4truth]

The enormous amounts of thread posts in support of the Arminian view shows the exact statement, as I posted it, is factual.

Arminians have consistently stated that in effect God is impotent. That until man decides to activate their own self-generated faith and of their own free will and by their own free choice to accept or reject salvation a person is not saved. No wonder the ultimate end is no real eternal security and easy believism.

If they would man up, they'd note that their theology is akin to Copelands. God, according to his theology, and theirs is a helpless being until man let's Him in by faith.

Arminianism/non-cal theologies all exalt man, regardless if the resident arminian starts threads in a feeble attempt to say it's Cals who do so.

There is absolutely zero evidence "cals" exalt man, and more than ample proof proving the arms/non-cals do, even if they categorically deny it. The evidence is as the bleating of the sheep which Saul took.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't care what you think of my view, that is not the point of the tread. Seems you all are trying to avoid a simple a question here with a bunch of rhetoric. Hmmmm lol.

If you forgot the question, post #64

Its not the question....its you and your attitude that I find offensive, all you do is attack....ah, so I will just block you from now on.

 

[Benjamin]

SPOT ON!:thumbs:

Again, its not about what you see wrong with my view or what I see wrong with yours. Do you have an answer to the question of how the title I offered is a true statement or not? Or are you now trying to replace your whining with personal attacks and pom poms?

 

[preacher4truth]

Sure....as long as you promise to take a long walk off a short pier..:tongue3: I personally view your groups perspective as anthropocentric vs our theocentric prospective.

...which is 100% accurate.

I've not witnessed an arminian or non-cal on here fight for the Glory of God as they do for the choice of man, or for man himself, period. Something is amiss with them.

 

[Benjamin]

Its not the question....its you and your attitude that I find offensive, all you do is attack....ah, so I will just block you from now on.

Sounds like you's rather be an Ostrich that have to answer that question. I understand.

 

[Benjamin]

...which is 100% accurate.

I've not witnessed an arminian or non-cal on here fight for the Glory of God as they do for the choice of man, or for man himself, period. Something is amiss with them.

Not the point of the tread nor does it answer my question. My, look at the avoidance of such a simple question and the tactics being used to do it!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If they would man up, they'd note that their theology is akin to Copelands. God, according to his theology, and theirs is a helpless being until man let's Him in by faith.

Arminianism/non-cal theologies all exalt man, regardless if the resident arminian starts threads in a feeble attempt to say it's Cals who do so.

There is absolutely zero evidence "cals" exalt man, and more than ample proof proving the arms/non-cals do, even if they categorically deny it. The evidence is as the bleating of the sheep which Saul took.

Yea ie,. even though God's grace is attractive and persuasive, its not powerful enough to triumph over those who stubbornly resist His love (that would have been me before being Born Again) ..... according to them I am assigned to hell....... :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

Not the point of the tread nor does it answer my question. My, look at the avoidance of such a simple question and the tactics being used to do it!

Ben, you've to date not presented any theological evidence to support your man exalting theology. You and Copeland share the same theories and theological end: man. So do the balance of those within arminian and non-cal theologies.

Why should I care? You've been warned and admonished well beyond the Biblical mandate.

Carry on, but not by blessing.

 

[Benjamin]

If they would man up,

If you'd man up you'd stop with all the childish personal attacks trying to turn every debate you can't handle into a smokescreen of a personal slugfest and simply answer the question, post #64.

 

[Benjamin]

Yea ie,. even though God's grace is attractive and persuasive, its not powerful enough to triumph over those who stubbornly resist His love (that would have been me before being Born Again) ..... according to them I am assigned to hell....... :laugh:

Off topic whining...

Horse laugh-Ostrich approach I guess.

 

[preacher4truth]

If you'd man up you'd stop with all the childish personal attacks trying to turn every debate you can't handle into a smokescreen of a personal slugfest and simply answer the question, post #64.

There you go proving you've lost with your pejoratives.

One more time: Your theology doesn't differ from Copelands. He, as well as you, render God incapable and unable to do a thing until man exercises faith within your theological framework.

But go ahead, pretend truth is a smokesreen and slugfest, then call those who show you truth names as you do, which is a work of the flesh. Afterall, you have behaved this way up until this point, so why not continue on the same path?

 

[agedman]

Brand it for what it is, or not??? You didn't answer the question.



Again,

The Op asks for title, I think the one I offered accurately describes your view, if not, why not? Simply tell me what is inaccurate about the title I offered.

Sure I did, you just didn't like the answer.

Which is why you filled in the answer with "blah, blah, blah..." rather than addressing where the answer that you obviously didn't like was wrong.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

...which is 100% accurate.

I've not witnessed an arminian or non-cal on here fight for the Glory of God as they do for the choice of man, or for man himself, period. Something is amiss with them.

Yes however if you recall my earlier post about church service in 1905....those good people were fighting this "race to humanism" then so it isnt "New"

but the good news is..... My wife is now embracing Salvation / Doctrine of Grace Theology. She announced it last evening & my heart leapt for joy. 1st my brother & now her. :godisgood: