The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[Skandelon]

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

Why would they when you have already labeled them as heretic and show no willingness to deal with the actual context and intent of their quotes? I know I wouldn't bother...

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

No. You are the one bringing the accusations, you do the work to support it. I won't carry your burden of proof for you.

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.

Then prove it by quoting them in their full context and asking them for clarity in regard to their intent. Then you, and everyone else, will clearly see if they are indeed supporting the essential elements of Pelagian doctrine. Otherwise it is just a smear campaign as Webdog suggests.

Everything since has been PURELY personal attack.

Really? Let's review:

1. You attack these quotes as heretical.

2. Thus, you at least imply that the unnamed (but known) authors are heretics.

3. They attack your claims as unfounded and ask you to view these quotes in context.

4. You refuse.

5. They attack your methods again.

What is personal exactly?

 

[Skandelon]

Hey Webdog,

Remember that Calvinistic guy (I won't give his name because I don't want to be accused of anything) who said, "God is in control of absolutely everything."

He is obviously a heretical fatalist that believes God causes men to sin, I mean just look at that quote. That must be what he means, right?

And what about the unnamed guy who said, "The elect will be saved no matter what we do." He must be one of those Hyperist who believe that we don't really need to evangelize. That is heretical!

Where did they say that?

What? You want to read their quotes for yourself to see if that is what they really meant? Look it up yourself. Isn't it obvious they are heretics?! Gosh!!!

 

[Winman]

I was quoted often, and I am not Pelagian. I have said dozens of times that no man could be saved unless God first revealed Jesus Christ to us through the scriptures. I would bet I have posted Romans 10:14 many dozens of times in the past two years to support this.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I have posted this verse and highligted it like this dozens of times. No man can possibly believe in Jesus unless he has heard of Jesus. If God did not send prophets to speak his word and record it in the scriptures we would all be lost and without any hope to be saved.

So, no way do I believe man makes the first move toward God. God has sent his word and his spirit into the world to enlighten and convict man. When a man hears the scripture, he is told he is a sinner in danger of hell fire. But a man is also told that God loved us even when we were sinners and sent his Son Jesus to die for our sins, and that he was raised again. And if we trust and believe on Jesus we will be forgiven our sins.

All a man can do is respond. He can choose to obey and trust Christ, or he can reject the word of God and refuse to trust Christ. But God initiates salvation, and it is God alone that regenerates a man that believes.

Here are some of my statements you quoted;

No, Jesus came in the flesh (sarx), the same flesh we have. But the flesh is not evil in itself. The flesh has lusts and desires that would pull and entice us toward sin, but a person does not sin or become sinful until they obey the lusts of the flesh and commit a transgression of God's law.

I stand by this. The scriptures say Jesus came in the flesh, he took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, he suffered being tempted, and was tempted in all points as we are without sin. That is what the scriptures say. If you don't believe that, then you are the heretic.

The fact that no man goes without sin proves nothing. Adam and Eve were created very good, they had no sin nature, yet they sinned the very first time they were tempted. What makes you think any other man would do better? They lived in a pure world with only one law and one temptation and sinned, we live in a filthy world with many laws and thousands of temptations.

I stand by this. Adam and Eve were not created with a sin nature, yet they both sinned. This proves a sin nature is not required to sin. The fact that we sin does not prove we were born with a sin nature, just as the fact that Adam and Eve sinned does not prove they were created with a sin nature. That is simple logic.

People harden themselves against their conscience, their conscience becomes seared. This all proves it is natural for man to do right, and unnatural to do wrong. If our nature were sinful, then sin would be natural and not offend our conscience.

Romans 1:27 says men left the "natural" use of the woman and burned in their lust toward other men. This shows that man by nature recognize that homosexuality is unnatural. If men were homosexual by nature, they would not recognize that they are leaving the "natural" use of the woman. Think about it.

But I do not believe it is some sort of contagion like a disease. Sin is a free will choice, just as it was for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created upright, no one thinks this undermines Christ, as soon as they sinned they needed Christ. It is the same for us, this is what I believe.

I stand by this, sin is not a disease, it is a choice. Did Satan infect Adam and Eve with some disease that caused them to sin? No, he suggested sin to them and they chose to believe him.

I am consistent with my view. I believe every man is made upright as Ecc 7:29 says. We come into the world just like Adam and Eve, and just like Adam and Eve we all choose to sin and become sinners.

I stand by this. Ecc 7:29 says God has made man upright, but they (all men) have sought out many inventions. I didn't say this, God did.

If you did not believe the false doctrine of Augustine, all of these scriptures would make perfect sense to you. But because you hold to Augustine's Manichean and Gnostic beliefs, you must explain away these many scriptures. You must make up ridiculous and unscriptural theories that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to avoid a sin nature, when scriptures say it was a sign.

I stand by this. In my opinion, Augustine introduced much error into the church.

The verse clearly says God has made man upright. Look up the definition of "upright", it means righteous. Then it says "but they (all men) have sought out many inventions" showing man willingly and knowingly sinned. To seek out anything is an act of the will, it is a desiring for something, or to do something. A newborn baby has no concept of what sin is, and a newborn child cannot devise or seek out sin.

Again, this is Ecc 7:29 which says God made man upright. If you don't like this verse, take it up with God, he is the one who wrote it.

 

[glfredrick]

I was quoted often, and I am not Pelagian. I have said dozens of times that no man could be saved unless God first revealed Jesus Christ to us through the scriptures. I would bet I have posted Romans 10:14 many dozens of times in the past two years to support this.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I have posted this verse and highligted it like this dozens of times. No man can possibly believe in Jesus unless he has heard of Jesus. If God did not send prophets to speak his word and record it in the scriptures we would all be lost and without any hope to be saved.

So, no way do I believe man makes the first move toward God. God has sent his word and his spirit into the world to enlighten and convict man. When a man hears the scripture, he is told he is a sinner in danger of hell fire. But a man is also told that God loved us even when we were sinners and sent his Son Jesus to die for our sins, and that he was raised again. And if we trust and believe on Jesus we will be forgiven our sins.

All a man can do is respond. He can choose to obey and trust Christ, or he can reject the word of God and refuse to trust Christ. But God initiates salvation, and it is God alone that regenerates a man that believes.

Here are some of my statements you quoted;



I stand by this. The scriptures say Jesus came in the flesh, he took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, he suffered being tempted, and was tempted in all points as we are without sin. That is what the scriptures say. If you don't believe that, then you are the heretic.



I stand by this. Adam and Eve were not created with a sin nature, yet they both sinned. This proves a sin nature is not required to sin. The fact that we sin does not prove we were born with a sin nature, just as the fact that Adam and Eve sinned does not prove they were created with a sin nature. That is simple logic.



Romans 1:27 says men left the "natural" use of the woman and burned in their lust toward other men. This shows that man by nature recognize that homosexuality is unnatural. If men were homosexual by nature, they would not recognize that they are leaving the "natural" use of the woman. Think about it.



I stand by this, sin is not a disease, it is a choice. Did Satan infect Adam and Eve with some disease that caused them to sin? No, he suggested sin to them and they chose to believe him.



I stand by this. Ecc 7:29 says God has made man upright, but they (all men) have sought out many inventions. I didn't say this, God did.



I stand by this. In my opinion, Augustine introduced much error into the church.



Again, this is Ecc 7:29 which says God made man upright. If you don't like this verse, take it up with God, he is the one who wrote it.

One man comes forward.

Your response stands as you wrote it.

 

[Amy.G]

Some of the quotes I recognized immediately as coming from someone who is not a Baptist and posts frequently in the Other Denoms section. So a name wasn't necessary. But he cannot post in this section. How about start a thread on Pelegianism over there and see what happens?

 

[Winman]

One man comes forward.

Your response stands as you wrote it.

How perceptive of you to recognize that I said "I stand by this" concerning these statements.

Original Sin and Total Depravity are closely related, but they are not the same. I believe God made man upright (Ecc 7:29) but that all men corrupt themselves and become depraved. However, I do not believe man ever loses the ability to respond to the gospel.

The difference between non-Cal and Cal theology is not Original Sin, Original Sin is only an argument as to WHEN a man becomes a sinner. The real difference is that Cal theology believes in Total INABILITY, where non-Cal theology does not.

If you can show even one verse in all the scriptures that says men are born UNABLE to respond to the gospel, you will have proved your doctrine.

So, go ahead, show that scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

Charlie Brown's teacher comes to my mind.

 

[quantumfaith]

How perceptive of you to recognize that I said "I stand by this" concerning these statements.

Original Sin and Total Depravity are closely related, but they are not the same. I believe God made man upright (Ecc 7:29) but that all men corrupt themselves and become depraved. However, I do not believe man ever loses the ability to respond to the gospel.

The difference between non-Cal and Cal theology is not Original Sin, Original Sin is only an argument as to WHEN a man becomes a sinner. The real difference is that Cal theology believes in Total INABILITY, where non-Cal theology does not.

If you can show even one verse in all the scriptures that says men are born UNABLE to respond to the gospel, you will have proved your doctrine.

So, go ahead, show that scripture.[/QUOTE]

http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav

 

[Mark_13]

If you can show even one verse in all the scriptures that says men are born UNABLE to respond to the gospel, you will have proved your doctrine.

So, go ahead, show that scripture.

You probably won't interpret the following like I do, but -

(Ezekiel 16:3-6 NASB) 'Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem, "Your origin and your birth are from the land of the Canaanite, your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water for cleansing; you were not rubbed with salt or even wrapped in cloths. No eye looked with pity on you to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you. Rather you were thrown out into the open field, for you were abhorred on the day you were born. When I passed by you and saw you squirming in your blood, I said to you in your blood, 'Live!' Yes, I said to you in your blood, 'Live!'

 

[quantumfaith]

You probably won't interpret the following like I do, but -

(Ezekiel 16:3-6 NASB) 'Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem, "Your origin and your birth are from the land of the Canaanite, your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water for cleansing; you were not rubbed with salt or even wrapped in cloths. No eye looked with pity on you to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you. Rather you were thrown out into the open field, for you were abhorred on the day you were born. When I passed by you and saw you squirming in your blood, I said to you in your blood, 'Live!' Yes, I said to you in your blood, 'Live!'

Actually, I have NO Idea on how to interpret that scripture.