Misunderstanding Unlimited Atonement.

[Van]

Without defining "Limited Atonement" you are paddling toward no purpose. Limited Atonement refers to the Calvinist myth that Christ only died for the elect chosen individually before creation. Therefore God does not really desire all men to be saved, and Christ did not really lay down His life as a ransom for all. He did not become the propitiation (or means of salvation) for the whole world, meaning all of fallen mankind.

The narrow bridge and the wide bridge have absolutely nothing to do with who was bought by the sacrifice of Christ. The bridges are illustrations of the means to bridge the gap between our fallen unholy condition and God's exclusion of all unholiness from His domain. The narrow bridge is Christ, and the wide bridge is fallen man's works of righteousness (i.e. filthy rags). The narrow bridge and the wide bridge do not even span the same stream. The narrow bridge leads to life and the wide bridge leads to destruction. They both go all the way.

 

[TCassidy]

Limited Atonement refers to the Calvinist myth that Christ only died for the elect chosen individually before creation.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

 

[JonC]

Uh, no, it doesn't.

I think the reasoning is that since you hold to the doctrine of Limited Atonement you are biased and therefore must submit to the definitions of those who reject the idea.

 

[TCassidy]

I think the reasoning is that since you hold to the doctrine of Limited Atonement you are biased and therefore must submit to the definitions of those who reject the idea.

Yes. They often resort to that sort of "reasoning." Unfortunately, all it does is publicly display their own ignorance of the subject.

 

[glad4mercy]

You, yourself, have said you must cooperate with God by not resisting. QED

Wrong. I did not say that my "not resisting" produces a greater effect than God's action would produce alone. It's the same effect, because regeneration is a monergistic act of God (I add nothing efficacious or meritorious whatsoever) The act of regeneration and salvation is wholly of God, so I put no ENERGEIA into it whatsoever.

SO I am not a synergist accoring to your own definition of synergism. Maybe you should go back and read the definintion you posted, because you just gave an entirely different definition here than the one you gave before.

 

[glad4mercy]

That doesnt say God needs help or that we add any energeia to our own salvation. So I'm waiting now too.

 

[TCassidy]

God's Grace + not resisting = Salvation.

God's Grace + anything = Synergism.

You can deny it and dance around it all you want but your salvation is, none the less, based on something you do. In this case, not resisting.

QED

By the way. You claim to be a "Classic Arminian" but, in my opinion, you have shown in this thread that you are not.

Don't forget, Arminius was a minister of the Dutch REFORMED Church.

 

[glad4mercy]

Excuse me but who has ever said "God needs my help to save me?"

Iconoclast disagrees with a question?

 

[glad4mercy]

God's Grace + not resisting = Salvation.

God's Grace + anything = Synergism.

You can deny it and dance around it all you want but your salvation is, none the less, based on something you do. In this case, not resisting.

QED

By the way. You claim to be a "Classic Arminian" but, in my opinion, you have shown in this thread that you are not.

Don't forget, Arminius was a minister of the Dutch REFORMED Church.

SO God's grace plus hearing the Gospel is synergism.

Isn't hearing the gospel something you do?

 

[rsr]

Well, I was the one who labeled him such, and I still think he is.

The problem comes at the point one considers whether cooperation, after prevenient grace, is a work. Calvinists think it is; Arminians don't. I think Arminians are wrong on this point, but I understand his theology (which has some support in Scripture).

 

[TCassidy]

Isn't hearing the gospel something you do?

Is "hearing" an active verb or a passive verb? And is hearing the gospel an absolute necessity to salvation? If so aren't any deaf people saved?

Again, it is obvious you are dodging and dancing and denying in what appears to be desperation.

 

[TCassidy]

Well, I was the one who labeled him such, and I still think he is.

The problem comes at the point one considers whether cooperation, after prevenient grace, is a work. Calvinists think it is; Arminians don't. I think Arminians are wrong on this point, but I understand his theology (which has some support in Scripture).

We need an "almost agree" icon. I almost agree with your post with the exception of the last, parenthetic statement.

 

[glad4mercy]

Is "hearing" an active verb or a passive verb? And is hearing the gospel an absolute necessity to salvation? If so aren't any deaf people saved?

Again, it is obvious you are dodging and dancing and denying in what appears to be desperation.

Is "not resisting" and active or passive verb?

Deaf people can read the Gospel or see it in sign language. Oh, something they do again.

So if I read the Bible and am saved by faith, I read the Bible and reading is an active verb. So now I am a synergist because I was saved because I read the Bible and was granted faith to believe.

So you better not read the Bible before you get saved, or else you are a synergist

 

[TCassidy]

Is "not resisting" and active or passive verb?

Active.

 

[rsr]

We need an "almost agree" icon. I almost agree with your post with the exception of the last, parenthetic statement.

I can live with that. If Bible-believing Arminians couldn't produce some Scriptural support we could denounce them as out-and-out Pelagians or worse.

 

[glad4mercy]

Active.

So now NOT DOING AN ACT is an active verb.

So again, if I was saved because I picked up a bible and God granted me faith to believe, I did something. Does that make me a synergist?

When the Philippian jailer asked what he needed to do to be saved, why didnt Paul rebuke him for his synergistic tendencies.According to how you define synergism

 

[TCassidy]

I can live with that. If Bible-believing Arminians couldn't produce some Scriptural support we could denounce them as out-and-out Pelagians or worse.

That might be going a bit too far. As Pelagius denied any grace at all being necessary, and all Arminians I know of accept the concept of prevenient grace, that would, in my mind, remove them not only from the ranks of Pelagians but also semi-pelatians who also did not see a necessity for prevenient grace.

 

[TCassidy]

So now NOT DOING AN ACT is an active verb.

Now you are just being silly. I suggest a refresher course in English grammar.

 

[TCassidy]

So again, if I was saved because I picked up a bible and God granted me faith to believe, I just did something.

I am overjoyed that you now accept the Particular Baptist doctrine of Regeneration being solely an act of God and preceding faith.

Who says the age of miracles is past?

 

[rsr]

Good to hear. Given the Pelagian and SemiPelagian tendencies of must of American evangelicalism, I can tolerate classical Arminians as a breath of fresh air.