The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[glfredrick]

:thumbs::thumbs:

And when Glf actually links to the context of quotes I may take the time to engage.

As Webdog and Quantum have rightly pointed out, the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is universally denied here to my knowledge.

The statements stand on their own right, and I selected the statements posted by those persons on this board who said precisely what they wanted to say so that the statements COULD stand. There is not another context to what I posted. They are what they are.

Indeed, "Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is " NOT "universally denied here..." To YOUR KNOWLEGE... Perhaps, but I doubt even that.

I am curious why everyone wants to know who posted the comments above? Is it so that someone here can parse the comments to mean other than what the posters wrote? Is it because the statements above cannot stand on their own right?

OR...

Is it because many on this board, includind moderators, have turned a blind eye to heresy and blasphemy that is written in thread posts on this board?

Let's just deal with the statements themselves.

 

[DaChaser1]

:thumbs::thumbs:

And when Glf actually links to the context of quotes I may take the time to engage. Just as different Calvinists here represent their view in various ways (some of which come across more 'hyper' or like a 'hard determinist' than others), so too there are non-Cals here who represent their views in different ways.

I don't deny men are born with a sin nature, while Webdog seems to take issue with that view. I can't speak for him, but after reading him in context it appears that he has more of an issue with how 'sin nature' is defined by many Calvinists, where as he MIGHT not have an issue with the way I would define it.

Since I don't believe a man's propensity to sin (i.e. 'sin nature') prevents him from being reconciled in light of God's powerful appeal, and Calvinists do, there could be a difference of degree and/or definition that should be noted.

As Webdog and Quantum have rightly pointed out, the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is universally denied here to my knowledge.

The problem even with this view is that the very accusation is based upon a reality that doesn't exist (i.e. a world where God is not seeking the lost). Since that reality is non-existant, how can a view dependent upon that reality even exist? IOW, if we both affirm that God is seeking to save the lost (sending his gospel appeal to EVERY creature; sending the HS to convict the world of sin, etc), which I assume we can all affirm; THEN how can any of us believe in a system where men are coming to God on their own initiative and without God's gracious aid?

Are we back to arguing IF God was fair in his dealings with mankind regarding salvation?

How can we argue with God in just HOW he chose to desperse Grace and mercy

 

[preacher4truth]

The statements stand on their own right, and I selected the statements posted by those persons on this board who said precisely what they wanted to say so that the statements COULD stand. There is not another context to what I posted. They are what they are.

Indeed, "Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is " NOT "universally denied here..." To YOUR KNOWLEGE... Perhaps, but I doubt even that.

I am curious why everyone wants to know who posted the comments above? Is it so that someone here can parse the comments to mean other than what the posters wrote? Is it because the statements above cannot stand on their own right?

OR...

Is it because many on this board, includind moderators, have turned a blind eye to heresy and blasphemy that is written in thread posts on this board?

Let's just deal with the statements themselves.

It's a simple task for a moderator or otherwise to use "advanced search" to find said quotes, or, it is just as easy to not do this, and make pretense they don't exist and use this as a copout.

The latter seems much more comfortable for some rather than facing facts.

 

[glfredrick]

I can name names...

I can attribute each of those posts. It really is not that difficult and it only took me a few minutes to find them.

There are members here that argue THAT WAY constantly. They usually get the "thumbs up" from others who are willing to let some -- perhaps more bold or perhaps more foolish -- fight their battles for them.

But, let's say that I DO name the names. How long before I'm banned from the board just for naming persons who ACTUALLY wrote that stuff? I'd bet less than 10 minutes.

And, how many attacks will I have to suffer from here on in?

I've gone back and re-read all my quotes. EACH can stand alone, for they are encapsulated enough to have a full thought. EACH also is remarkably non-biblical in nature.

That I pulled ALL those quotes from just around 3 threads means that a LOT of argument has been made FOR the positions of those quotes.

Like I've been saying all along, let's discuss the POINTS that I cited and see if they are biblical or not, then perhaps once we've arrived at a consensus I will indeed name names.

Ball is in your court gentlemen (and ladies if there are any). Will you discuss the POINTS above, or is this a man hunt?

 

[DaChaser1]

I can name names...

I can attribute each of those posts. It really is not that difficult and it only took me a few minutes to find them.

There are members here that argue THAT WAY constantly. They usually get the "thumbs up" from others who are willing to let some -- perhaps more bold or perhaps more foolish -- fight their battles for them.

But, let's say that I DO name the names. How long before I'm banned from the board just for naming persons who ACTUALLY wrote that stuff? I'd bet less than 10 minutes.

And, how many attacks will I have to suffer from here on in?

I've gone back and re-read all my quotes. EACH can stand alone, for they are encapsulated enough to have a full thought. EACH also is remarkably non-biblical in nature.

That I pulled ALL those quotes from just around 3 threads means that a LOT of argument has been made FOR the positions of those quotes.

Like I've been saying all along, let's discuss the POINTS that I cited and see if they are biblical or not, then perhaps once we've arrived at a consensus I will indeed name names.

Ball is in your court gentlemen (and ladies if there are any). Will you discuss the POINTS above, or is this a man hunt?

Think that once again the heavy anti cal bias coming through on this thread, and a refusal to confront what is pretty obvious as being bad bibical and systematic theology!

 

[preacher4truth]

I can name names...

I can attribute each of those posts. It really is not that difficult and it only took me a few minutes to find them.

There are members here that argue THAT WAY constantly. They usually get the "thumbs up" from others who are willing to let some -- perhaps more bold or perhaps more foolish -- fight their battles for them.

But, let's say that I DO name the names. How long before I'm banned from the board just for naming persons who ACTUALLY wrote that stuff? I'd bet less than 10 minutes.

And, how many attacks will I have to suffer from here on in?

I've gone back and re-read all my quotes. EACH can stand alone, for they are encapsulated enough to have a full thought. EACH also is remarkably non-biblical in nature.

That I pulled ALL those quotes from just around 3 threads means that a LOT of argument has been made FOR the positions of those quotes.

Like I've been saying all along, let's discuss the POINTS that I cited and see if they are biblical or not, then perhaps once we've arrived at a consensus I will indeed name names.

Ball is in your court gentlemen (and ladies if there are any). Will you discuss the POINTS above, or is this a man hunt?

Amen. You're wise to remain where you are. The evidence is there, and there is no need to name names.

 

[DaChaser1]

Amen. You're wise to remain where you are. The evidence is there, and there is no need to name names.

Just confused why so many here seemed so concerned that God Himself has decided to handle the election/predestination aspect of getting saved!

is it because we don't see it as being fair, or that we need to help out God!

 

[preacher4truth]

Just confused why so many here seemed so concerned that God Himself has decided to handle the election/predestination aspect of getting saved!

is it because we don't see it as being fair, or that we need to help out God!

No. There is more of a focus on "Calvinists" and what they say. The other quotes are easy to find by a simple search, and what they said is clearly in error theologically. But these are not the main focus, so they go on unchecked. :thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

I am defending the fact that I labeled some of the posts on this board "Pelagian." I did not do that for the common reasons that someone does that around here -- as a perjorative -- rather, I did that because THEY ARE. Hence the quotes.

These are but a drop in the bucket of what could be posted and I only gathered the posts of several persons. I could easily pad the total by several posts full of quotes if that is what is desired, but no one is dealing with what has been posted so far, so why bother adding to the count.

Many on this board claim some sort of "non-cal" doctrine, and that is fine. JUST DEFINE IT so that we all know where you stand. It is YOUR doctrine, stick it out there for all the world to see. And, if you are not sure, say so. Be honest. Be forthright. But this continual hiding heretical doctrines behind a "non-cal" position has to stop. This does not honor God -- it elevates humaity to a point were the individuals who hold these doctrines find themselves usurping God's rightful throne -- except that ultimately He will not allow it and they do so to their peril.

 

[DaChaser1]

I am defending the fact that I labeled some of the posts on this board "Pelagian." I did not do that for the common reasons that someone does that around here -- as a perjorative -- rather, I did that because THEY ARE. Hence the quotes.

These are but a drop in the bucket of what could be posted and I only gathered the posts of several persons. I could easily pad the total by several posts full of quotes if that is what is desired, but no one is dealing with what has been posted so far, so why bother adding to the count.

Many on this board claim some sort of "non-cal" doctrine, and that is fine. JUST DEFINE IT so that we all know where you stand. It is YOUR doctrine, stick it out there for all the world to see. And, if you are not sure, say so. Be honest. Be forthright. But this continual hiding heretical doctrines behind a "non-cal" position has to stop. This does not honor God -- it elevates humaity to a point were the individuals who hold these doctrines find themselves usurping God's rightful throne -- except that ultimately He will not allow it and they do so to their peril.

Still wondering why SO many here seem to have a big problem with allowing God to have the final call in salvation!

Why do they evade the question asked of them what the basis of election by God is?
Why avade acknowledging that they have to co assist God in getting people saved?

 

[Skandelon]

Still wondering why SO many here seem to have a big problem with allowing God to have the final call in salvation!

We do believe he has the final call. He called us to repentance and faith. We are RESPONSE-ABLE to RESPOND to His call and are held to account for that response. It doesn't have to be all that complicated.

 

[Skandelon]

The statements stand on their own right, and I selected the statements posted by those persons on this board who said precisely what they wanted to say so that the statements COULD stand. There is not another context to what I posted. They are what they are.

Indeed, "Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is " NOT "universally denied here..."

And when you link to the post that claims men are born good and that they seek God on their own then I'll be glad to rebuke it along with you....

Just because someone defines men's sin nature differently than you do doesn't mean they hold to the 'essential elements' of Pelagianism.

 

[webdog]

:thumbs::thumbs:

And when Glf actually links to the context of quotes I may take the time to engage. Just as different Calvinists here represent their view in various ways (some of which come across more 'hyper' or like a 'hard determinist' than others), so too there are non-Cals here who represent their views in different ways.

I don't deny men are born with a sin nature, while Webdog seems to take issue with that view. I can't speak for him, but after reading him in context it appears that he has more of an issue with how 'sin nature' is defined by many Calvinists, where as he MIGHT not have an issue with the way I would define it.


Since I don't believe a man's propensity to sin (i.e. 'sin nature') prevents him from being reconciled in light of God's powerful appeal, and Calvinists do, there could be a difference of degree and/or definition that should be noted.

As Webdog and Quantum have rightly pointed out, the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is universally denied here to my knowledge.

The problem even with this view is that the very accusation is based upon a reality that doesn't exist (i.e. a world where God is not seeking the lost). Since that reality is non-existant, how can a view dependent upon that reality even exist? IOW, if we both affirm that God is seeking to save the lost (sending his gospel appeal to EVERY creature; sending the HS to convict the world of sin, etc), which I assume we can all affirm; THEN how can any of us believe in a system where men are coming to God on their own initiative and without God's gracious aid?

I think you have me confused with winman, I believe man is born with a sin nature, but I don't believe man is borna sinner

 

[Skandelon]

I think you have me confused with winman, I believe man is born with a sin nature, but I don't believe man is borna sinner

Sorry, like I said, "I can't speak for him..." :saint:

This is why I simply asked glf to credit other's quotes. It's not that difficult. :type:

 

[Winman]

I think you have me confused with winman, I believe man is born with a sin nature, but I don't believe man is borna sinner

And it all depends on how you define sin nature. If being flesh with lusts and desires that entice a person toward sin, I believe man is born with this nature, but I call it "flesh", just as the scriptures call it. Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted, but I would never say Jesus had a sin nature.

Temptation is not sin, or else Jesus would be a sinner, as he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus "suffered" being tempted. He had to resist temptation just as we do. If you want to call being flesh with a nature that entices or pulls us toward sin a sin nature, that is your choice, but I refuse to believe Jesus had a sin nature.

Jam 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Being tempted is not sinful, the scriptures say "blessed is the man that endureth temptation". Temptation is a test to prove whether you love God, or whether you love self.

I agree we are born with a nature that tempts us, but I do not believe you become a sinner until you actually obey temptation that would cause you to transgress one of God's laws. I agree with Webdog, we are not born sinners.

 

[quantumfaith]

We do believe he has the final call. He called us to repentance and faith. We are RESPONSE-ABLE to RESPOND to His call and are held to account for that response. It doesn't have to be all that complicated.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

And when you link to the post that claims men are born good and that they seek God on their own then I'll be glad to rebuke it along with you....

Just because someone defines men's sin nature differently than you do doesn't mean they hold to the 'essential elements' of Pelagianism.

Thanks for articulating so precisely the thoughts I was having.

 

[quantumfaith]

:thumbs::thumbs:

And when Glf actually links to the context of quotes I may take the time to engage. Just as different Calvinists here represent their view in various ways (some of which come across more 'hyper' or like a 'hard determinist' than others), so too there are non-Cals here who represent their views in different ways.

I don't deny men are born with a sin nature, while Webdog seems to take issue with that view. I can't speak for him, but after reading him in context it appears that he has more of an issue with how 'sin nature' is defined by many Calvinists, where as he MIGHT not have an issue with the way I would define it.

Since I don't believe a man's propensity to sin (i.e. 'sin nature') prevents him from being reconciled in light of God's powerful appeal, and Calvinists do, there could be a difference of degree and/or definition that should be noted.

As Webdog and Quantum have rightly pointed out, the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is universally denied here to my knowledge.

The problem even with this view is that the very accusation is based upon a reality that doesn't exist (i.e. a world where God is not seeking the lost). Since that reality is non-existant, how can a view dependent upon that reality even exist? IOW, if we both affirm that God is seeking to save the lost (sending his gospel appeal to EVERY creature; sending the HS to convict the world of sin, etc), which I assume we can all affirm; THEN how can any of us believe in a system where men are coming to God on their own initiative and without God's gracious aid?

Actually Skandelon, "I think" that pelagianism is even more distinctive in that it is even MORE than seeking God without assistance, it, as I understand it implies that man can attain salvation (moral perfection) through ones will alone without any notion of God's assistance. Personally, I do think man can indeed "seek" God as is I believe is clearly illustrated throughout history. It is my personal conviction that this is an innate part of God's design corrupted but not cancelled in the fall.

 

[glfredrick]

Actually Skandelon, "I think" that pelagianism is even more distinctive in that it is even MORE than seeking God without assistance, it, as I understand it implies that man can attain salvation (moral perfection) through ones will alone without any notion of God's assistance. Personally, I do think man can indeed "seek" God as is I believe is clearly illustrated throughout history. It is my personal conviction that this is an innate part of God's design corrupted but not cancelled in the fall.

Earlier, you were closer to what true Pelagianism states. Here, you take the concept apart from any Christian walk, and Pelagius certainly never did that. He still wanted and needed God, but for a different reason than God's effectual grace that had to come first in order for an individual to become one of His children.

 

[glfredrick]

I said this privately and I will also post it publiclly...

I do not have a "hit list" of those people whom I am "out to get." My motives are other than that. I am saddened when I see zealous men (and women) who are directing their efforts in a way as to be apart from the revealed Scriptures. We find therein, a "narrow road," but not a "razor blade" of orthodoxy that the church has argued since its inception. I am good with that "narrow road" and can understand why some people come down on one side or the other as long as where they come down is ultimately not either heretical nor blasphemous, which the cited remarks certainly are.

To flesh out that idea some, I can say that I get all the positions that individuals have held since the inception of the church. I understand that they argue their positions from the scriptures and that they may interpret some aspect of God's revealed doctrines in a slightly different way than someone else. All of that does not remove one from orthdodox Christian belief as long as God is not removed as THE author and finisher of our salvation.

But in the cases I cited above, the argument is not for God but rather to elevate humanity to the point where we accept the lie of the serpent and truly believe that we can "know good and evil" to a point sufficient in and of ourselves to reconcile OURSELVES to God. That can and will NEVER BE.

That is my argument. Some have made heretical statements against God in that they DO hold that we might somehow reconcile OURSELVES to God without God first doing some work of grace to make that possible. That is an heretical statement and all who walked that "narrow road" throughout the history of Christ's church have all agreed on that orthodox doctrine.

My utmost desire is not to tear down individuals, but rather that they would recant and repent lest they ultimately be lost!