Security of the Believer Beliefs

[BobRyan]

HP: ...I in no way ‘misrepresented Calvinisim’ as you imply.

Your ‘acceptance’ or rejection of salvation is mere code words for necessitated fatalism. In the Calvinist scenario, one ‘accepts’ salvation about like one would ‘accept’ a skull fracture from a rock falling of a cliff onto their head.

#1. Anytime Calvinism is represented in an unfavorable light - or in a way that exposes one of its glaring flaws and contradictions it is "being misrepresented". That is one of the most basic "redefinition of terms" used non-stop in the Calvinist's long lists of redefined terms.

#2. That was pretty funny about "Accepting a skull fracture". :laugh:

As "Old Regular" or "HardSheller" pointed out (I keep getting those two mixed up) - in Calvinism the FIRST thing that happens is the new birth - being born again as a Christian fully regenerate, embraced and reconciled in the body of Christ. THEN the one formerly lost wakes up and says 'HEY I see that I am now a Christian - I guess I should go ahead and accept Christ.'

And of course such doctrine is in gross contradiction to the whole language of "evangelism" for NO evangelist will make the CALVINIST argument (not even CALVINIST evangelists) when holding a meeting "NOTHING you say or do will change your salvation and nothing I say here will make a change NOR will it cause God to SELECT YOU out as being loved AND favored in His arbitrary selection process. So let's just all sit down and be quiet and SEE if this might just so happen to be a MOMENT when God will SELECT out someone here to be converted. Shhhh quite everyone! Let's watch and see what happens. Mood music please!"

At the VERY BEST using the Calvinist model for conversion and regeneration the ONLY purpose an evangelist MEETING could POSSIBLY serve is that when God arbitrarily selects out someone to be REGENERATE they would THEN be "conveniently" at a Christian meeting where they could THEN learn about what they should now DO as a Christian ALREADY regenerate, ALREADY forgiven, ALREADY having peace with God. Being suddenly swapped INTO the camp of God it is simply a matter of "convenience" that they THEN learn and accept the story of salvation. (Though it would not matter if they did not find out about it for ten years under OSAS of the 4 point variety)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

drfuss: You are the one who is challenging Dr. Harper, not me. So the focus is still on you to answer your claim of Wesleyan Arminian authors. Of course, if you have no authors, I can see your problem.

HP: That is simply not the case. I am challenging 'your interpretation' of what you read in the book, not the author himself. I am still waiting for the quote that states that one can be trusting in the Lord subsequent to falling from grace. If I were guessing, I would say that you have misunderstood the author.

Drfuss: In post #82, I cut and paste a section from the Lutheran website that said Lutherans believe a Christian can lose his salvation. You indicated it did not say that in post #84. It obviously did say a Chrsitian could lose his salvation which was agreed to by another poster.

HP: This was my question then, and I ask it again. “What does it mean to 'lose faith,' and if one does do is it possible for such a one to to lose their salvation and become eternally lost?” If you desire to get to the truth as to their beliefs, why not find and post the answer to the question I asked? Then we can have a meaningful discussion of the issue. All I was pointing out is that with the wording they used, it is impossible for the reader to ascertain their true intents. It is much like the Calvinist stating tht man must accept salvation, when ‘accept’ to them is nothing more than the necessitated results of God’s election. How is that ‘accepting’ anything?

Drfuss: In post #124, you said that there was "no appreciable difference" between Beliefs #1 & #2. That is so obviously incorrect that it does not warrant further comment.

HP: If one group states TUP and accepts the logical consequences of I and L, and the other admits as well to TUP but denies the logical inferences of I and L, what is the real distinction between them? The second group obviously tries to distance or separate themselves from the first group, but logically they have no basis for their attempted separation. They are just being inconsistent. No one can reasonably or logically deny the logically deduced ends of their stated beliefs. That is what #2 appears to be trying to accomplish, and for that reason I say again, there is no appreciable difference, there are no logical grounds for them to claim any distinction or for the list you have posted to say they are 'in reality,' from a logical perspective, differing views. They are, for all logical purposes, one in the same belief.

Drfuss: Also, in post #124, you said there is "no meaningful distinction" between Beliefs #3,4&5. I agreed Belief #5 was not well supported and perhaps should be deleted. However, there is a meaningful distinction between Beliefs #3 & #4.

HP: I said concerning #3, 4, and 5, “I see no meaningful distinction between three, four, and five. What Wesleyan/ Arminain would not believe that you can choose to forfeit God’s grace by not believing? I also have never found a Wesleyan/Arminian that did not believe that a born again believer could have any sure hope of eternal salvation apart from an active desire and aim of a holy sanctified life.”
You obviously disagree. Rather than to just say you see a meaningful distinction and disagree with my assessment, could you offer the list insight into the clear distinctions you see? Can you point to any Wesleyan Arminian that does not believe that one can forfeit God’s grace by not believing?

Drfuss: Note that two theologians participated in authoring a 281 page book based on there being a difference between Beliefs #3 & #4 as well as between Beliefs #1 & #2. It there was no difference, I am sure they would not have wasted their time on the book.

HP: Now how does that prove anything?? Does the whole import of your agreement with their assessment lie in the fact that there are ‘two theologians’ that agreed together and wrote a book stating so??

Drfuss: I suggest that you buy the book and read it for yourself.

HP: This is a discussion list, not a means to stump for book sales. You have the book. It was your decision to state its findings on this discussion list, and that is all well and good. Just the same, instead of giving us what you think they say, and then disagreeing with others when they challenge your understanding of the authors or the authors themselves, give us the specific quotes that back up your findings. I am not interest at this time to convince any authors of anything, I am on a discussion list wit you, not them. My comments are to you and this list, not them. If they desire to join in with this discussion, by all means, invite them to join in!!

Drfuss: Based on the above, I am not inclined to type sections of the book for you to then put your own interpretation on what it says.

HP: Why would that be wrong for me to do?? Is that not precisely what you have done, give us your interpretation of what the authors have stated??

Drfuss: The book is not written where excepts can be given without typing whole pages to get the total context.

HP: And I suppose you are the only one qualified to determine what in fact the context is?

Drfuss: On page #239, the paragraph is talking about "fall from grace, unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy". The last sentence of the paragraph reads: "To discount the possibility of either is to make us even more vulnerable to their occurrence".

HP: Thank you! Finally the authors own words. The problem is that this sentence tells the reader nothing that we do not already know and fully agree with, in that Wesleyan Arminians believe it is possible to sin and or to fall into apostasy. What we are looking for is evidence to your claim that WA’s believe that one can be trusting in Christ while in a lost state. That is the point I questioned and as of yet have not seen the least evidence that such is believed by them.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Drfuss: In post #82, I cut and paste a section from the Lutheran website that said Lutherans believe a Christian can lose his salvation. You indicated it did not say that in post #84. It obviously did say a Chrsitian could lose his salvation which was agreed to by another poster.

HP
HP: This was my question then, and I ask it again. “What does it mean to 'lose faith,' and if one does do is it possible for such a one to to lose their salvation and become eternally lost?” If you desire to get to the truth as to their beliefs, why not find and post the answer to the question I asked? Then we can have a meaningful discussion of the issue. All I was pointing out is that with the wording they used, it is impossible for the reader to ascertain their true intents. It is much like the Calvinist stating tht man must accept salvation, when ‘accept’ to them is nothing more than the necessitated results of God’s election. How is that ‘accepting’ anything?

First of all we know that Luther did not consider himself to be a member of the "Lutheran" denomination - but rather to be a Catholic reformer.

We know that the Catholic Church considers "loss of faith" to be fatal they have no delusion about OSAS in that regard.

In Romans 11 "you FEAR for you stand only by your faith... if He did not spare them neither will He spare you" - this has to be fatal if you do not already explicitly hold to OSAS.

For Luther then you would have to argue that except for explicit beliefs stated to be in contradiction or opposition to those of the RCC he held to the beliefs of the church that he thought himself to be reforming.

I am not aware that even Calvin held to OSAS explicitly.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

HP: I grew up around a large range of Wesleyan Arminians. I have listened to literally thousands of messages and have numerous publications, pamphlets, and books written by many of their writers.

drfuss: I am still waiting for the many Wesleyan Arminian writers you referred to above. If you have none, say so. If you have some Wesleyan Arminian writers, provide them.

Quote:
Drfuss: Note that two theologians participated in authoring a 281 page book based on there being a difference between Beliefs #3 & #4 as well as between Beliefs #1 & #2. It there was no difference, I am sure they would not have wasted their time on the book.


HP: Now how does that prove anything?? Does the whole import of your agreement with their assessment lie in the fact that there are ‘two theologians’ that agreed together and wrote a book stating so??

drfuss: All four authors are seminary professors who agree there are four different beliefs on eternal security. The differences are significant enough for them to write a 281 page book on the four different beliefs and comparisons between the four beliefs. Yet you say Beliefs #1 & #2 are the same and Beliefs #3 & #4 are the same. In both cases, you disagree with all four professors from four different beliefs. If that doesn't prove anything to you, then there is no reason for me to continue this discussion with you.

IMO, you are sounding like many OSAS Christians who have heard and repeat misconceptions about other beliefs, but have not checked out the documentation by the other beliefs authors. They tend to lump other (different) beliefs together because the other beliefs don't agree with OSAS. They can only look at other beliefs though OSAS glasses. This leads to many misconceptions about what others believe.

I suggest you read the book.

 

[drfuss]

HP: Can you point to any Wesleyan Arminian that does not believe that one can forfeit God’s grace by not believing?


drfuss: Both Beliefs #3 & #4 say that a Christain can forfeit God's grace by not believing.

Belief #4 also says a Christian can lose his salvation by not confessing and being remorseful for known sins or having long term un-forgiveness of others.

Beliefs #3 & #4 are repeated below for convenience.


3. Remonstrant Arminian Belief - Man must accept grace, but can later choose to forfeit grace by not believing.

4. Wesleyan Arminian Belief - Man must: accept grace, confess and be remorseful for known sins, and not have long term un-forgiveness of others in order to not lose his salvation. Of course he can repent and be restored..

 

[BobRyan]

Think about it - to lose salvation what does the "atoning Sacrifice" model of 1john 2:2 that was completed on the cross HAVE to be??

It has to be the model of atonement (Atoning Sacrifice NIV) and NOT the model of "propitiating the angry diety with payment" that was completed on the cross.

It is the ONLY model that can work with the doctrine of "falling from Grace" as we see in Gal 5. It means that those groups that reject the doctrinal error of OSAS have to hold to a form of "Atonement" in 1John 2:2 that is consitent with the Lev 16 (God so LOVED the world that HE gave) teaching given by God instead of the greek pagan notion of "appeasing an angry diety".

In a "grocery store" model that goods are "bought" and there is no "taking them back". In the Atonement model you hold the gift ONLY by grace and ONLY as long as you stand in faith "FEAR for you stand only by your faith-- if He did not spare them neither will He spare you". Romans 11.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Can you point to any Wesleyan Arminian that does not believe that one can forfeit God’s grace by not believing?

drfuss: Both Beliefs #3 & #4 say that a Christain can forfeit God's grace by not believing.

HP: We are looking for differences between #3 and #4, right? We agree that both #3 ad #4 agree together on forfeiting God’s grace. Having settled that, where is the glaring distinction between the two on the security of the believer? Are they indicating in this book you are reading that #3 does NOT believe that refusal to repent and confess ones sins, which would obviously include unforgiveness, will in fact separate them from their firm hope of eternal life?

I am still waiting to see you document where any Arminian or the authors of the book you are reading believes that one can still be seen as ‘trusting in God’ subsequent to losing ones salvation. Could this possibly be something 'you' think is possible and the authors of the book made no such indication of it as being true? If one has lost his salvation, would not it be logical that he has stopped trusting in God? If one is trusting in God, would not that indicate a relationship with Him?

3. Remonstrant Arminian Belief - Man must accept grace, but can later choose to forfeit grace by not believing.

4. Wesleyan Arminian Belief - Man must: accept grace, confess and be remorseful for known sins, and not have long term un-forgiveness of others in order to not lose his salvation. Of course he can repent and be restored..

 

[BobRyan]

I have to agree that it appears that both views admit that you can lose salvation. But belief 4 simply adds the focus on perseverance of the saints in the context of also being able to lose salvation.

And this is "no difference" because both views would fully admit that all who DO persevere firm until the end are saved and both would agree that those who do not persevere - still WERE saved but are no longer saved.

In that case - there is no difference.

Another interesting thing is There is NO SUCH THING as "failure to persevere" if perseverance and OSAS are both true. By definition the lost CAN NOT fail to persevere in "being lost" without becoming "saved" and the saved are only OSAS IF they continue in faith.

The only view that even ADMITS to the Bible case of believing and then failing to persevere IN that faith - IN that walk - In that belief - is the one that rejects the false doctrine of OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

HP: We are looking for differences between #3 and #4, right? We agree that both #3 ad #4 agree together on forfeiting God’s grace. Having settled that, where is the glaring distinction between the two on the security of the believer? Are they indicating in this book you are reading that #3 does NOT believe that refusal to repent and confess ones sins, which would obviously include unforgiveness, will in fact separate them from their firm hope of eternal life?

drfuss: For some reason or other, you did not include the second part of my post that addresses the difference. So here are both parts.

drfuss: Both Beliefs #3 & #4 say that a Christain can forfeit God's grace by not believing.

Belief #4 also says a Christian can lose his salvation by not confessing and being remorseful for known sins or having long term un-forgiveness of others.

Okay, I found a relatively short paragraph in a summary section of the book (page 187) that addresses these issues. However, it was written by Dr. Stephen m. Ashby who represents belief #3. Reformed Arminians represent Belief #3 in the book.


"What causes one to lose salvation? Wesleyans say that willful and unconfessed sin constitutes a backslidden condition, which renders the individual lost. Reformed Arminians, by contrast, hold that rejection of faith in Christ, and that alone, removes one from union with Christ. But short of that solitary act of apostasy, the believer is to be found in union with Christ and thus stands justified in the merits of Christ alone."


I am still waiting for you to provide those Wesleyan Arminian authors you have read.

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

drfuss: I am still waiting for you to provide those Wesleyan Arminian authors you have read.

HP: You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding upon whom the burden of proof lies in a debate. It was you, not I, that made the statement that a Wesleyan/Arminian (as I recall) believes that one can be trusting in Christ subsequent to losing ones salvation. (Remember, I do not personally use the words ‘losing ones salvation,’ but others such as yourself had said such concerning others, therefore I use it here as one would when quoting someone) Therefore the burden of proof lies upon you, not myself or anyone else, to provide proper evidence to back up your assertions. For you to keep asking me to provide evidence to the contrary is simply outside of the bounds of debate. I am under no obligation to provide you with any evidence to the contrary.

Put this shoe on the other foot. If I had made the comment instead of you, then and only then would it be proper in a debate to demand verifiable evidence to substantiate the statement I had made. To my knowledge, all I have done up until this point in our debate is to deny that any really believe as you say they do. In this case the burden of proof still remains upon you to prove your assertions.

All you would have to do is to post , as you have on other issues we have been discussing, clear statements by Wesleyan Arminian authors, that indeed the believe as you say, or withdraw your comment. Fair enough?

 

[drfuss]

Quote:
drfuss: I am still waiting for you to provide those Wesleyan Arminian authors you have read.


drfuss: HP, you seem to be missing my question, so let's review it. My question comes from the first part of your post repeated below. In an earlier post you asked me for just one Wesley Arminian author that I was getting my information from, and I responded with Dr. J Steven Harper along with his qualifications.

In return, I have been asking you for the names of the Wesley Arminian writers of the books you are referring to in your post below. Your answer should be in the format of "John Doe", "John Smith", etc. Names is all I have been asking for. Please provide names.

HP: I grew up around a large range of Wesleyan Arminians. I have listened to literally thousands of messages and have numerous publications, pamphlets, and books written by many of their writers.

Could you give us a brief except from the book you are mentioning that would verify that Wesleyan Arminians believe that one can continue in their trust in Christ yet in reality have lost their salvation?

A SEPARATE ISSUE BELOW:

HP: "All you would have to do is to post , as you have on other issues we have been discussing, clear statements by Wesleyan Arminian authors, that indeed the believe as you say, or withdraw your comment. Fair enough?"

drfuss: As to your above request, I will have to go back and review just what I said and respond to you later.

 

[drfuss]

HP: All you would have to do is to post , as you have on other issues we have been discussing, clear statements by Wesleyan Arminian authors, that indeed the believe as you say, or withdraw your comment. Fair enough?

drfuss: I assume the below is the statement you are referring to.
Quote:
Drfuss: For Belief #4, A Christian continues to be secure in his salvation unless he does not confess and be remorseful for known sins or have a long term unforgiveness of others. Not confessing and being remorseful for known sins or long term unforegiveness of others can result in losing his salvation even though he continues to trust in Christ.

drfuss: I will provide some quotes from Dr. Harper, the Wesleyan Arminian in the book. The following excepts are from his 8 page section on "Sin After Conversion".

drfuss:
Page 242: "But what if we do not repent? What if we choose to let sin remain unconfessed? As amazing as this possibility may seem (laid alongside Gpd's gracious offer of restoration), Wesley saw the possibility of believers making "shipwreck" of their faith (1 Tim. 1:19). On this he commented, "for ships once wrecked cannot afterwards be saved."

Page 244: "Such apostasy may occur in two ways. First, believers may continue to posit the intellectual belief in the salvation offered in Christ but choose to step outside it in preference to their own self-sill (cf John 3:19).This might be called rebellious apostasy. Wesley saw it expressed in Hebrews 6:4-6"............."But the second way is through a rejection of God's provision for salvation in Christ. This is called "sin that leads to death" (1 John 5:16). This second means of apostasy is more radical than the first."


Dr. Harper's writing mixes various aspects together, unlike the more concise Dr. Ashby quote I gave you in a previous post. Note that Dr Harper comes up with two definitions of apostasy. Also note that the above quotes are about the falling away of "believers". To get the whole picture, you need to read Dr. Harper's whole section.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

drfuss: I assume the below is the statement you are referring to.
Quote:
Drfuss: For Belief #4, A Christian continues to be secure in his salvation unless he does not confess and be remorseful for known sins or have a long term unforgiveness of others. Not confessing and being remorseful for known sins or long term unforegiveness of others can result in losing his salvation even though he continues to trust in Christ.

HP: Yes. That is the quote.

drfuss: I will provide some quotes from Dr. Harper, the Wesleyan Arminian in the book. The following excepts are from his 8 page section on "Sin After Conversion".

drfuss:
Page 242: "But what if we do not repent? What if we choose to let sin remain unconfessed? As amazing as this possibility may seem (laid alongside God's gracious offer of restoration), Wesley saw the possibility of believers making "shipwreck" of their faith (1 Tim. 1:19). On this he commented, "for ships once wrecked cannot afterward ……………….
Page 244: "Such apostasy may occur in two ways. First, believers may continue to posit the intellectual belief in the salvation offered in Christ but choose to step outside it in preference to their own self-sill (cf John 3:19).s be saved."

HP: Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for the quotes.

Help me out here. In the quote from page 244 the author makes no sense to me as it is written. Do you suppose the Wesleyan Arminians could have some men about as confused to the truth as some of the Calvinist writers out there?

Maybe you should return the book for a refund.

 

[drfuss]

HP: Yes. That is the quote.

HP: Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for the quotes.

Help me out here. In the quote from page 244 the author makes no sense to me as it is written. Do you suppose the Wesleyan Arminians could have some men about as confused to the truth as some of the Calvinist writers out there?

Maybe you should return the book for a refund.

drfuss: Some points to consider:

1. You are concerned about the differences between Beliefs #3 & #4. Most of Dr. Harper's writing in this book was directed at Calvinism. He hardly mentions Belief #3. I think that is why I could not find a complete, concise statement like the one Dr. Ashby wrote which I provided in a previous post.

2. Dr. Harper made his point a number of times that the eternal security issue should not be separated from other parts of the gospel. He had more to say about other aspects of the gospel in reference to the eternal security issue than he said about the eternal security issue itself. The other aspects which he intertwined with the eternal security issue, included:the doctrine of grace. the nature of humanity, the atonement of Christ, and appropriation of salvation.

3. The book is structured such that each author presented his own view; then the other three authors commented on the other three views. The other's comments included the inconsistences and weaknesses of the view in question. Knowing this, there was a tendency to be defensive in their writings. The uncertainites about each belief that I presented in post #119, reflect some of the others comments.

4. Throughout Dr. Harper's writing, it seemed to me that he assumed the others and the readers already knew what Wesleyan Arminians believed. He did not clearly define his beliefs as the others did, but wanted to tie it into his total gospel approach which he strongly implied the others did not do in their other writings.


Pardon the typo from page 244. It is self-will, not self-sill. Again, you need to read the whole section to get his context. The other authors also had problems with some of the things Dr. Harper said. Of course, he also had some problems with some of the things they said.

This is all the help I can give you concerning Dr. Harpers writings . Concerning the book being worthwhile, it has its problem, but is well worth reading. I suspect you would have some problems with what each of the authors had to say about their views.

 

[BobRyan]

drfuss: Some points to consider:

..
2. Dr. Harper made his point a number of times that the eternal security issue should not be separated from other parts of the gospel. He had more to say about other aspects of the gospel in reference to the eternal security issue than he said about the eternal security issue itself. The other aspects which he intertwined with the eternal security issue, included:the doctrine of grace. the nature of humanity, the atonement of Christ, and appropriation of salvation.

The atonement issue was my point here -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1005257&postcount=146

OSAS demands a certain "payment made" point of view that is more like the grocery store model than an atonement model where "God so Loves that He GIVES".

If intead "God got paid" (Christ so propitiated the angry diety that He was satisfied) then He has no right to demand "more payment" and to do so is to belittle the quality of the payment made by Christ. LImited atonement and finalyzed grocery-purchase has to be the model in OSAS.

But in the Atonement model - "Forgiveness Revoked" as in Matt 18 exaults the quality of Christ's sacrifice by not commoditizing it - one must "die daily" - "be worthy" as Paul states - take up our cross and follow (as Christ said) not by earning salvation but by persevering in Christ - walking as He walked by the Spirit instead of grabbing the groceries and running out of the store to do as you please (criminals on a crime spree).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

The atonement issue was my point here -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1005257&postcount=146

OSAS demands a certain "payment made" point of view that is more like the grocery store model than an atonement model where "God so Loves that He GIVES".

If intead "God got paid" (Christ so propitiated the angry diety that He was satisfied) then He has no right to demand "more payment" and to do so is to belittle the quality of the payment made by Christ. LImited atonement and finalyzed grocery-purchase has to be the model in OSAS.

But in the Atonement model - "Forgiveness Revoked" as in Matt 18 exaults the quality of Christ's sacrifice by not commoditizing it - one must "die daily" - "be worthy" as Paul states - take up our cross and follow (as Christ said) not by earning salvation but by persevering in Christ - walking as He walked by the Spirit instead of grabbing the groceries and running out of the store to do as you please (criminals on a crime spree).

In Christ,

Bob

Bob,

My objectives in reading the book was to determine Reformed Arminian and Wesleyan Arminian beliefs concerning the etermal security issue. So I did not get into the doctrine of grace. the nature of humanity, the atonement of Christ, and appropriation of salvation as Dr. Harper related them to eternal security.

I believe you would find them very interesting.

drfuss

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss: My objectives in reading the book was to determine Reformed Arminian and Wesleyan Arminian beliefs concerning the etermal security issue.

HP: That is indeed an objective, but could have you just received the opinions of a couple of men as to the beliefs of Ariminian and Wesleyan Arminians?

Scripture would be a better pursuit. It informs us clearly. “1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

 

[drfuss]

HP: That is indeed an objective, but could have you just received the opinions of a couple of men as to the beliefs of Ariminian and Wesleyan Arminians?

Scripture would be a better pursuit. It informs us clearly. “1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

Amazing!!! Is this the same HP that claimed to know all about the Wesleyan Arminian Belief based on reading books by Wesleyan Arminian writers? You have declined to identify your "Wesleyan Arminian" writers even when asked a number of times. I had decided to drop the question until your above comments.

Since you decline to identify your "Wesleyan Arminian" writers, I assume your writers were actually OSAS writers describing/criticizing the Wesleyan Arminian Beliefs, too many times a common practice about other beliefs among OSAS Christians.

While Dr. Harper does not speak for me, he certainly is qualified to speak for the Wesleyan Arminian Belief since he is professor of spiritual information and Wesley studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. If you wish to challenge Dr. Harper about what the Wesleyan Arminian Belief is, identify a Wesleyan Arminian writer that disagrees with him, and include his credentials.

Remember, the purpose of this thread is to define the various beliefs, not to condone or criticize them. I have attempted to remain neutral on the correctness of the beliefs. All of the beliefs are based on their interpretation of scripture, not necessarily mine.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The atonement issue was my point here -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1005257&postcount=146

OSAS demands a certain "payment made" point of view that is more like the grocery store model than an atonement model where "God so Loves that He GIVES".

If intead "God got paid" (Christ so propitiated the angry diety that He was satisfied) then He has no right to demand "more payment" and to do so is to belittle the quality of the payment made by Christ. LImited atonement and finalyzed grocery-purchase has to be the model in OSAS.

But in the Atonement model - "Forgiveness Revoked" as in Matt 18 exaults the quality of Christ's sacrifice by not commoditizing it - one must "die daily" - "be worthy" as Paul states - take up our cross and follow (as Christ said) not by earning salvation but by persevering in Christ - walking as He walked by the Spirit instead of grabbing the groceries and running out of the store to do as you please (criminals on a crime spree).

In Christ,

Bob

GE:

BobRyan persists in his misrepresentation of 'Calvinism' - a false accusation and transgression of the Law, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" -- of which he remains unrepentent and will remain unrepentent till his dying day --- a sin that by his own standards and dogma will not be forgiven him.

You underestimate the intelligence of your opponents, who simply won't pay you attention for keeping on with this for how many posts now. Do yourself a favour, and start thinking.