The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[preacher4truth]

The false teachings coming out of Arminian and non-cal camps still teeters on its faltering anthropocentric foundation as some of their beliefs below show. Oh, and by the way, I still haven't seen anyone address these teachings that they do in fact teach. I've only seen pejoratives being slung for exposing these actual errors, a work of the flesh mind you.

L - Limited Depravity - Rejection of the biblically lost state of all of man. We're not so bad off afterall, no matter what Romans 3 and other passages say. I'm not bad like the Word of God declares, that's for other people, not me, the Pharisees told me so.

I - I elect God - We choose God and then He can save when we will Him to, even if God says He is the one who chooses. God will choose me conditionally, none of this unconditional election where God does as He wills, it will be based upon my deeds and my choosing.

L - Limitless Atonement - Even the non-elect will be saved, i.e. universalism. We talk bad about Rob Bell, but in reality, our theology actually agrees with his when you really look at it. But don't look at it, because we'll deny what it teaches.

A – Arrestable Grace - We can halt God in His steps and thwart His calling and purpose, we have rights afterall, the right to be saved and the right to not be saved. We'll let you know what we decide God, just hang tight while we decide what you'll be doing for us, OK? Thanks.

C - Carnal Security - True arminian theology, non-cals and free-willers can take themselves right out of Gods hands of salvation by merely choosing, even when Christ says this can never happen, John 10:28.

Let's no longer wonder where Copelandisms/Meyerisms &c came from. They've stemmed from the false teachings above and according to freewill choice and an errant faith theology.

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

Admittedly, I have not "studied" Pelagianism, my previous comment was from the definition offered by Wikipedia.

 

[glfredrick]

Admittedly, I have not "studied" Pelagianism, my previous comment was from the definition offered by Wikipedia.

We have to bear in mind that Pelagius -- for as much of his doctrinal stance was outside the bounds of Scripture -- was operating from a Christian perspective. He was not a pagan and making him out to be that would be an un-truth concerning him. No, rather, like some here who argue likewise, Pelagius was trying to find some way to work around the issue of God's sovereignty over the will of man and the way he took in working around that issue was to make man the initiator and "chooser" of the whens and whys of salvation. That, for him, seemed to maximize the human culpability for their own sin (which drives many of the statements I cited) while taking God off the hook in that His sovereignty seemed (to Pelagius) to make Him out to be the author of evil (as many here have argued).

And, no, I am still not arguing FOR Pelagius or his views. Logical as they may seem, they are not "logical" in keeping with God's revelation which says that that He is King of all and Lord of ALL even if they are not among the elect.

 

[quantumfaith]

We have to bear in mind that Pelagius -- for as much of his doctrinal stance was outside the bounds of Scripture -- was operating from a Christian perspective. He was not a pagan and making him out to be that would be an un-truth concerning him. No, rather, like some here who argue likewise, Pelagius was trying to find some way to work around the issue of God's sovereignty over the will of man and the way he took in working around that issue was to make man the initiator and "chooser" of the whens and whys of salvation. That, for him, seemed to maximize the human culpability for their own sin (which drives many of the statements I cited) while taking God off the hook in that His sovereignty seemed (to Pelagius) to make Him out to be the author of evil (as many here have argued).

And, no, I am still not arguing FOR Pelagius or his views. Logical as they may seem, they are not "logical" in keeping with God's revelation which says that that He is King of all and Lord of ALL even if they are not among the elect.

I know it would have to a "cold day in South Alabama" before you would argue for Pelagius. Thanks for your contribution and illumination of Pelagius, I have a bit more "respect" for at least his attempt.

 

[webdog]

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



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!

This is nothing but hot air without the quotes in context, which I'm almost positive would NOT support pelagianism. Your smear campaign continues...

 

[Skandelon]

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.

But my point is that they aren't seeking God without God's initiative. And since God has taken the initiative to reveal himself through nature, conscience, law, prophets, His Son, Apostles, scripture and His Spirit how can anyone conclude that man would seek God on his own initiative?

IOW, if you show me a man who is seeking God then I will show you a man who God has already been seeking. This is a core value of our doctrine: God seeks to save that which is lost.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

I can't imagine any Christian in their right minds who think we are reconciling OURSELVES.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

God does the reconciling, and he gives us the ministry of reconciliation were He makes his appeal through us.

It is God that says we now know both good and evil, not just the serpent. And no where does it say that man can't respond to that which is graciously good in seeking to bring us reconciliation.

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.

Please answer yes or no: Is the Gospel a work of grace?

If no, WHY NOT?

If yes, then why do you consider it an insufficient work of His grace by which an additional work must precede or accompany it? And why do you accuse us of not believing in the need for a gracious work simply because we deny the need for an additional working of grace?

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

If this is true, and I believe it is, then please please please seek to first understand their intent before labeling and dismissing them (us). Okay?

 

[DaChaser1]

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.

ALL are held responsible/accountible to the Lord though!

God is the One who has to iniate the salvation process, and ONLY IF he himself saves us will any of us actually saved!

 

[Skandelon]

ALL are held responsible/accountible to the Lord though!

God is the One who has to iniate the salvation process, and ONLY IF he himself saves us will any of us actually saved!

:thumbs: Good to see we are in agreement.

 

[DaChaser1]

I can't imagine any Christian in their right minds who think we are reconciling OURSELVES.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

God does the reconciling, and he gives us the ministry of reconciliation were He makes his appeal through us.

It is God that says we now know both good and evil, not just the serpent. And no where does it say that man can't respond to that which is graciously good in seeking to bring us reconciliation.



Please answer yes or no: Is the Gospel a work of grace?

If no, WHY NOT?

If yes, then why do you consider it an insufficient work of His grace by which an additional work must precede or accompany it? And why do you accuse us of not believing in the need for a gracious work simply because we deny the need for an additional working of grace?


If this is true, and I believe it is, then please please please seek to first understand their intent before labeling and dismissing them (us). Okay?

The Gospel indeed accomplishes the work God has it sent for...

It 'wakes up" the Elect in Christ to receive jesus by faith and become saved, thus confirming their election!

We see man has spiritual dead /ruined by fall of adam, those like you tend to see him 'damaged goods", but still enough free will/ability left over to get the job done and accept/reject Christ alone!

So we see that the difference is NOT in the efficency of the atonement of Chrsit upon the Cross, nor in the power of the Gospel message to save, but in the fact thatwe just see diffeently on the extent of the wreakage of man by fall of Adam!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So we see that the difference is NOT in the efficency of the atonement of Chrsit upon the Cross, nor in the power of the Gospel message to save, but in the fact thatwe just see diffeently on the extent of the wreakage of man by fall of Adam!

Now you have me confused....there is INDEED a difference in how we see the efficiency of the atonement in addition to ....

 

[glfredrick]

This is nothing but hot air without the quotes in context, which I'm almost positive would NOT support pelagianism. Your smear campaign continues...

Exactly whom have I actually smeared?

BECAUSE I refuse to name names I am DEALING WITH WRITTEN TOPICS ONLY.

I have withheld names precisely because I knew persons such as yourself would just LOVE to jump all over the fact that names were named.

Now, are you going to deal with the issues in the statements or are you going to continue to SMEAR ME?

 

[glfredrick]

I can't imagine any Christian in their right minds who think we are reconciling OURSELVES.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

God does the reconciling, and he gives us the ministry of reconciliation were He makes his appeal through us.

It is God that says we now know both good and evil, not just the serpent. And no where does it say that man can't respond to that which is graciously good in seeking to bring us reconciliation.



Please answer yes or no: Is the Gospel a work of grace?

If no, WHY NOT?

If yes, then why do you consider it an insufficient work of His grace by which an additional work must precede or accompany it? And why do you accuse us of not believing in the need for a gracious work simply because we deny the need for an additional working of grace?


If this is true, and I believe it is, then please please please seek to first understand their intent before labeling and dismissing them (us). Okay?

Did you actually READ any of the quotes I cited above?

One of the primary arguments put forward in the posts I cited above is that WE CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY KEEPING THE LAW and another that goes hand in hand with that is that WE ARE NOT BORN LOST.

And, concerning your use of an inanimate object -- the written or spoken gospel as your "out" for the grace of God -- I find that you fail. GOD animates the words. The Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture. The gospel is indeed "good news" but it saves BECAUSE CHRIST SAVES. That we "get to hear it" is God's grace at work.

 

[Skandelon]

Exactly whom have I actually smeared?

BECAUSE I refuse to name names I am DEALING WITH WRITTEN TOPICS ONLY.

I have withheld names precisely because I knew persons such as yourself would just LOVE to jump all over the fact that names were named.

Now, are you going to deal with the issues in the statements or are you going to continue to SMEAR ME?

1. People can recognize their own quotes and know if they have been taken out of context, misapplied and labeled as heretical even if you haven't credited their quote with an actual name.

2. This is why we have asked you to simply link the quotes to their context.

3. None of the quotes, that I read (and I admittedly didn't read them all), overtly or even subtly supported the essential claims of Pelagianism.

4. To claim that your campaign is one of 'smear' is not a smear on you personally, but on the campaign you have waged.

 

[preacher4truth]

The only thing being smeared here are those who have presented the errant theological positions of others.

I haven't seen one "calvinist" brother attempt to smear the messengers, I can't say that for those in arminian and non-calvinist camps. To face the issues would be to face tangible realities.

Rather than seeing a belligerency against the false teachings themselves, the attack is levelled on persons. This is a prized objective by several, not attacking teachings that are false, but others. Several have offered nothing theological, only snide comments about and against persons, brothers in Christ. I take it these cannot address or rebutt the doctrines, or, they hold to these teachings, yet don't want to be exposed.

Simply searching the quotes would reveal the author and the context, to not do so is to be deceitful and remain willingly ignorant.

 

[Skandelon]

Did you actually READ any of the quotes I cited above?

Yes, I read some and I didn't see any of them rise to the level of the "Pelagian" essentials we already discussed. Plus, I didn't read them in their context so how could I make such a judgement?

It appears from Webdogs, Quantum and Winman rebuttals here that they indeed do reject the essential claims of what is called 'pelagianism' today, so why not accept their denial and deal with their quotes within their context so as to understand their actual intent, instead of merely labeling and dismissing them as heretical???

And, concerning your use of an inanimate object -- the written or spoken gospel as your "out" for the grace of God -- I find that you fail.

huh?

You think I believe the gospel is an inanimate object? Where is this coming from? Please explain.

GOD animates the words. The Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture.

EXACTLY! So, why do you insist it is insufficient to enable a response?

I think I know the answer. Because you ASSUME God only animates and illuminates this truth for the 'elect' while leaving the rest in their natural totally blinded condition. The reason you think this is because God did temporarily blind the Jews from the gospel's truth so as to accomplish redemption for the world and you take the passages addressing this truth within that historical context as proof texts supporting this false assumption.

The gospel is indeed "good news"

Only for the elect of your system. For the mass of humanity it is the worse news of all: You aren't chosen.

 

[glfredrick]

1. People can recognize their own quotes and know if they have been taken out of context, misapplied and labeled as heretical even if you haven't credited their quote with an actual name.

2. This is why we have asked you to simply link the quotes to their context.

3. None of the quotes, that I read (and I admittedly didn't read them all), overtly or even subtly supported the essential claims of Pelagianism.

4. To claim that your campaign is one of 'smear' is not a smear on you personally, but on the campaign you have waged.

1. So far, no one has come forward to say so...

2. Read them, then come back and tell me that they are orthodox (and they do stand on their own).

3. If I really wanted to smear the people, I would simply have named names. I am REALLY wanting to deal with the comments themselves and have said so from the start.

4. What campaign am I waging? I made posts to counter a claim that NNE on this board holds certain doctrines. They do. I proved it.

Everything since has been PURELY personal attack.

 

[webdog]

Exactly whom have I actually smeared?

BECAUSE I refuse to name names I am DEALING WITH WRITTEN TOPICS ONLY.

I have withheld names precisely because I knew persons such as yourself would just LOVE to jump all over the fact that names were named.

Now, are you going to deal with the issues in the statements or are you going to continue to SMEAR ME?

Cop out. The reason you will not show the quotes in context is because you KNOW they do not support pelagianism and your pejorative hurling would be shown for what it is.

 

[preacher4truth]

1. So far, no one has come forward to say so...

2. Read them, then come back and tell me that they are orthodox (and they do stand on their own).

3. If I really wanted to smear the people, I would simply have named names. I am REALLY wanting to deal with the comments themselves and have said so from the start.

4. What campaign am I waging? I made posts to counter a claim that NNE on this board holds certain doctrines. They do. I proved it.

Everything since has been PURELY personal attack.

I fail to see any of the aforementioned "rebutters" actually rebutting a thing. Why? They haven't.

Talk about misrepresenting reality in stating they have.

Bro, this is just going to be a run around back and forth. Not one arm/non-cal has rebutted a thing in this thread. It's simply a co-belliegerency upon the messenger, nothing more and nothing less.

The quotes you've provided are purely pelagian, and any denial of this is a pretend game.

 

[webdog]

I fail to see any of the aforementioned "rebutters" actually rebutting a thing. Why? They haven't.

Talk about misrepresenting reality in stating they have.

Bro, this is just going to be a run around back and forth. Not one arm/non-cal has rebutted a thing in this thread. It's simply a co-belliegerncy upon the messenger, nothing more and nothing less.

The quotes you've provided are purely pelagian, and any denial of this is a pretend game.

..and The Sidekick comes on the scene proving our point in the above bolded. This means one of two things...these 2 do not understand pelagianism at it's core, or they do and are being dishonest. Take your pick.