Misunderstanding Unlimited Atonement.

[glad4mercy]

I don't know what that means. I cannot see his posts.

When you asked "who said God needs help to save somebody", Iconiclast put a big X of disagreement on your post. I never heard someone disagree with a question before.

He also did the same to me when I protested being called a synergist. It's just like when the Socinian called me a gnostic because I believed in original sin and natural depravity. You have to accept whatever false label people put on you.

And yes, Synergism is a false label. Which of us says that we add energeia to God's work of salvation? It is a false accusation.

As far as I'm concerned, the term synergism would necessarily mean both parties working and and the combined ENERGEIA of both parties produces regeneration. I don't know ANYONE who believes that.

And according to some, not resisting is an active verb, did you know that? So I guess "Not working" in Romans 4:5 is an active verb too.

Not resisting is not a work. So it is not synergism. Ergos means work.

False label

 

[glad4mercy]

Getting back on topic, God did build the bridge all the way across the divide, because He did that in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. WE believe that, so the claim of "a bridge going only halfway or partway across (see OP) is inaccurate.

SO someone tell me one Arminian that claims that we had a part or work in the Incarnation, substitutionary atonement, resurrection, ascension/glorification of Christ. THAT is the bridge. And no one says that bridge only goes halfway across.

 

[Revmitchell]

When you asked "who said God needs help to save somebody", Iconiclast put a big X of disagreement on your post. I never heard someone disagree with a question before.

He also did the same to me when I protested being called a synergist. It's just like when the Socinian called me a gnostic because I believed in original sin and natural depravity. You have to accept whatever false label people put on you.

And yes, Synergism is a false label. Which of us says that we add energeia to God's work of salvation? It is a false accusation.

As far as I'm concerned, the term synergism would necessarily mean both parties working and and the combined ENERGEIA of both parties produces regeneration. I don't know ANYONE who believes that.

And according to some, not resisting is an active verb, did you know that? So I guess "Not working" in Romans 4:5 is an active verb too.

Not resisting is not a work. So it is not synergism. Ergos means work.

False label

So what happens is they think that the ratings and points means something. So they have a habit of agreeing with anything calvinist and disagreeing with anything else so as to give cals a higher set of points. The rating system was well intentioned but we do not have mature enough folks around here to handle it. The owner of the board had to scale back some of them to try to bring some peace. I have stopped using negative ratings altogether. You will need to discover those with whom you want to carry on regular conversations with people and those with whom you need to ignore.

For instance, it is best to ignore those who want to place positions and labels on you that you yourself have not claimed. They do it so as to have an argument to knock down. They like to interpret your own words in ways you yourself will not. See they think they know better than you. Its childish and nothing more than a debate tactic.

 

[glad4mercy]

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

I asked you if not resisting was an active or passive act and you said active Post 54

 

[Revmitchell]

I asked you if not resisting was an active or passive act and you said active Post 54

If you keep responding to posts like that it will be what you always get.

 

[TCassidy]

I asked you if not resisting was an active or passive act and you said active Post 54

I suggested you do a refresher course in English grammar. I renew that suggestion.

"Resisting" - when used as you are using it - is a verb in the active voice. It is something you do.

The word "not" is NOT a verb! It is an adverb. An adverb is a word that is used to modify a verb. Therefore the adverb "not" is neither active nor passive voice. Adverbs don't have voice. Verbs have voice.

When you use the phrase "not resisting" you are making a statement of intent which includes a conscious avoiding of resisting. The word "avoiding" is also a verb, in this case in the active voice. In other words, it is something you do.

What I am very patiently trying to tell you is that your very question displays an inability to understand the issue. The fact you could even ask if "not resisting" is active or passive indicates you have insufficient grasp of English grammar to formulate a cogent question. And, therefore, my suggestion you take a refresher course in English grammar.

 

[JonC]

So.....not doing something is doing something because it is refraining from the something you would otherwise be doing.

 

[Van]

Uh, no, it doesn't.

One of the tactics of those pushing Limited Atonement is to deny what Limited Atonement means. Note they provide no alternate definition,

I prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. I rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, which communicates that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect, and that Christ died for His sheep and laid down His life for those the Father had given to Him.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.' Surely that is clear enough for anybody? The Father has elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) a people whom He has given to the Lord Jesus Christ who has redeemed them from sin at measureless cost. These people will come to Christ; there can be no doubt about it for He repeats the statement in John 6:39; 17:2 etc.

Of course the God who ordained salvation has also ordained the means- faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why we read, 'And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed' (Acts 13:48). Not one more nor one fewer.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The fact you could even ask if "not resisting" is active or passive indicates you have insufficient grasp of English grammar to formulate a cogent question.

In his original post, Glad4mercy asked if "not resisting" is an active or passive verb and you have answered him correctly. The Passive Voice of "Not resisting" is "not being resisted."

However, in post #84, he asked if it was an active or passive act. There is a difference. There is such a thing as passive resistance.

 

[TCassidy]

One of the tactics of those pushing Limited Atonement is to deny what Limited Atonement means.

Wrong again. We just deny your mischaracterization of what we believe.

Note they provide no alternate definition,

You have been given the definition several times and continue to ignore it and repeat your false "definition." Would it really help to explain it to you one more time?

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

No, it doesn't.

Limited Atonement states that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe.

If you would bother to find out what you are talking about before you start talking you might be taken more seriously by the other posters.

The Canons of the Synod of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 3:

"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

And who did Christ die for, according to the bible doctrine of Particular Redemption? Had you bothered to ask, rather than assigned a false belief to us you might have known He died for all.

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."

2 Corinthians 5:15 "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

Christ is the Savior of all people in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life. In that sense, Christ died for all. Christ is the Savior of all in a general, providential way, but He is Savior in a specific, special way to those who believe.

And, of course, you too limit the Atonement. You, just like Particular Redemptionists, limit it to believers. And not even all believers. You exclude some believers from receiving the redemption inherent in the Atonement. You limit the Atonement in that you don't believe it applies to believing demons. James 2:19b "the devils also believe, and tremble."

 

[TCassidy]

So.....not doing something is doing something because it is refraining from the something you would otherwise be doing.

Have you ever heard of passive resistance?

 

[JonC]

Have you ever heard of passive resistance?

And passive aggressive.

 

[TCassidy]

And passive aggressive.

Well, you know yourself better than I do.

 

[JonC]

In his original post, Glad4mercy asked if "not resisting" is an active or passive verb and you have answered him correctly. The Passive Voice of "Not resisting" is "not being resisted."

However, in post #84, he asked if it was an active or passive act. There is a difference. There is such a thing as passive resistance.

I agree. The difference is whether "not resisting" is an act or if it is simply an observation that there existed no resistance.

 

[JonC]

Well, you know yourself better than I do.

Me? No. I'm more into aggressive pacificity.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wrong again. We just deny your mischaracterization of what we believe.

You have been given the definition several times and continue to ignore it and repeat your false "definition." Would it really help to explain it to you one more time?

No, it doesn't.

Limited Atonement states that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe.

If you would bother to find out what you are talking about before you start talking you might be taken more seriously by the other posters.

The Canons of the Synod of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 3:

"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

And who did Christ die for, according to the bible doctrine of Particular Redemption? Had you bothered to ask, rather than assigned a false belief to us you might have known He died for all.

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."

2 Corinthians 5:15 "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

Christ is the Savior of all people in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life. In that sense, Christ died for all. Christ is the Savior of all in a general, providential way, but He is Savior in a specific, special way to those who believe.

And, of course, you too limit the Atonement. You, just like Particular Redemptionists, limit it to believers. And not even all believers. You exclude some believers from receiving the redemption inherent in the Atonement. You limit the Atonement in that you don't believe it applies to believing demons. James 2:19b "the devils also believe, and tremble."

Jesus death was enough to be sufficient to Have God be able to freely save all sinners, but God intended to have His death provide the means to save a remnant people out from among all sinners, just as God choose Isreal out of all other nations to be his own people, and now us in the Church...

 

[glad4mercy]

If you keep responding to posts like that it will be what you always get.

Insults is all he has left

 

[glad4mercy]

So.....not doing something is doing something because it is refraining from the something you would otherwise be doing.

Exactly my point

T.Cassidy makes "not resisting" a work or action and then calls it synergism. So according to his definition of action "not seeking to justify myself by the Law" is also an action.

 

[glad4mercy]

I agree. The difference is whether "not resisting" is an act or if it is simply an observation that there existed no resistance.

Thank you. T. Cassiday takes a NEGATIVE VERB and claims it to be an action and then calls it synergism.It's like saying that if I do not resist someone carrying me out of a fire, that I helped that person pull me out of the fire.

T. Cassiday even said it was equivelant to saying "God needs my help to save me". (see post 35)

Synergism means two agents working together to produce a greater effect than would be produced by either agent by themselves. So how is my not resisting God's grace making His salvation have a greater effect.I provided no meritorious work and no effectual power or energeia in my regeneration. So T. Cassidy and others are using the word "synergism" incorrectly.

Plus, T. Cassiday said that grace plus anything equals synergism. And so regeneration is monergistic. But then he said "WE MUST" do something to make salvation PERMAMENT
(T. Cassidy post 61-What must he do to be saved progressively and permanently? Simple. He had to believe He was Who He claimed to be, and believe in what He did. )
This was in response to the Philippian jailer, who asked "what must I do to be saved"

Is this not making regeneration monergistic but salvation itself synergistic? He says I am misrepresenting him, but what else could "doing something to make my salvation permament mean?

My question to all who accuse us of synergism is this...If grace plus anything equals synergism, then why didn't Paul CORRECT the Philippian jailer when he asked him "What must I DO to be saved? To be saved is a passive verb, but there are conditions. The conditions do not produce regeneration or salvation, only God's power does (SALVATION IS OF THE LORD, RIGHT). Therefore, people are using the word synergism INCORRECTLY.