What does consistent error look like?

[MorseOp]

Do you mean to say that it is truly the case that he answers prayers from and in response to humans or does it just seem that way? Would she have an incorrect sentiment if a calvinist were to pray thinking that had she not prayed things might have been different?

God answers human prayers (can prayer originate from any other created species?). If an Arminian prays for his brother to be saved, God can still answer that prayer even if it is inconsistent with that Arminian's personal theology. If a Calvinist prays the same thing it does not alleviate the person being prayed for of having to exercise faith. The issue is really one of perfect knowledge. I think I am going to start a thread on that.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hos,,,

go to humbles link....then click on olsons article on what I like about calvinists.....then scroll down to him responding to comments. Read his own words....

I already have....as I haunt sites like his semi-regularly, and this OP is still making a mountain out of a mole-hill. If it were not the case that you were viewing it through the lense of Calvinist Polemic, and were unaware of it, then reading what he says, in context, whether you agree with it or not, is basically benign at worst. You are, and were, looking with a fine-toothed comb as hard as possible, to find something you could construe as objectionable in his writing, and you found it. :applause: Good for you :applause: You could do the same thing with any non-inspired writings of the Apostle Paul himself, and, were he an Arminian, I have no doubt you would try.

Consider two things:
1.) Olson is capable of writing a sincere article entitled "What I like about Calvinists"
2.) You would be incapable of writing a sincere article entitled "What I like about Arminians"

In this respect: We could all learn something from Olson.

I think Olson is making "mountains out of mole-hills" with the article in your OP. You are making mountains out of molehills by harping on Olson's use of the word "can't". Again, if you understood what he was saying, you wouldn't take it as a statement of God's power as you do, but a statement about his character and purpose. That is what I meant by viewing it charitably and reasonably. This thread is a pointless witch-hunt, predicated upon a rather insignifigant and somewhat ill-advised (IMO) article by Olson. Brian Abasciano's response article to it is much better.

For those who would like to read it.....http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/1417

 

[Skandelon]

What does a consistent error look like?

A Non-Evangelistic Double Predestinarian Hyper Calvinist.

 

[saturneptune]

A Non-Evangelistic Double Predestinarian Hyper Calvinist.

That is probably about how Michael Servetus looked while being burned.

 

[Iconoclast]

I already have....as I haunt sites like his semi-regularly, and this OP is still making a mountain out of a mole-hill. If it were not the case that you were viewing it through the lense of Calvinist Polemic, and were unaware of it, then reading what he says, in context, whether you agree with it or not, is basically benign at worst. You are, and were, looking with a fine-toothed comb as hard as possible, to find something you could construe as objectionable in his writing, and you found it. :applause: Good for you :applause: You could do the same thing with any non-inspired writings of the Apostle Paul himself, and, were he an Arminian, I have no doubt you would try.

Consider two things:
1.) Olson is capable of writing a sincere article entitled "What I like about Calvinists"
2.) You would be incapable of writing a sincere article entitled "What I like about Arminians"

In this respect: We could all learn something from Olson.

I think Olson is making "mountains out of mole-hills" with the article in your OP. You are making mountains out of molehills by harping on Olson's use of the word "can't". Again, if you understood what he was saying, you wouldn't take it as a statement of God's power as you do, but a statement about his character and purpose. That is what I meant by viewing it charitably and reasonably. This thread is a pointless witch-hunt, predicated upon a rather insignifigant and somewhat ill-advised (IMO) article by Olson. Brian Abasciano's response article to it is much better.

For those who would like to read it.....http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/1417

HOS.....we will not agree here:wavey: That website is a fountain of poison, just like in the westerns when the wagon train finds water that kills the cattle.
As time permits I will seek to contact Roger Olson. I could develop this further...but sometimes it brings me down to read such error...sincerely believed and held by its followers. It leads to many absurdities as Michael Horton pointed out.

 

[Iconoclast]

Alive in Christ;
You guys hold to the doctrine of eternal security as I do.

AIC

A few questions for clarity here. In your scheme how is the sinner secure?

You claim God leaves it to the sinner to believe or not.

What if the sinner does not want to believe tommorow?

Does the sinner give God.....permission...to keep him saved???

Does God force the sinner to remain saved against his will?

 

[quantumfaith]

HOS.....we will not agree here:wavey: That website is a fountain of poison, just like in the westerns when the wagon train finds water that kills the cattle.
As time permits I will seek to contact Roger Olson. I could develop this further...but sometimes it brings me down to read such error...sincerely believed and held by its followers. It leads to many absurdities as Michael Horton pointed out.

"fountain of poison"?? Evangelical Arminians? Wow, Icon, that is a new low. And nothing in Calcvinism, by reduction ad infinitum could be reduced to absurdities?

 

[Iconoclast]

"fountain of poison"?? Evangelical Arminians? Wow, Icon, that is a new low. And nothing in Calcvinism, by reduction ad infinitum could be reduced to absurdities?

Did you read any of the articles on that sight??? Horrible:thumbsup: Error is error...who ever posts it.

 

[quantumfaith]

Did you read any of the articles on that sight??? Horrible:thumbsup: Error is error...who ever posts it.

I often read articles on that site, I have even read a few articles on reformed sites, I don't say such about them.

 

[Iconoclast]

I often read articles on that site, I have even read a few articles on reformed sites, I don't say such about them.

QF,
Whatever site we read...we must exercise caution.Among reformed men there are some horrible sites also. I do not think as many, because most all of the reformed men have a confessional base.Let me give an example.

A few years ago the Auburn Avenue conference harmed many churches.
many had respect for Doug Wilson and his work with christian education, and pulpit ministry. He and others went too far in their views...and now are viewed as dangerous ....people are urging them to recover themselves from the errors they taught at that conference.
God alone knows the heart as we know....but openly published error has to be opposed...no matter where it shows up.

Some of these big name pastors, go into print...writing a book....then it makes it harder for them to back out of it.

As time permits....I will go back to that site,and seek to demonstrate what I find very dangerous and indeed poison.

QF....just like in the western movies...the thirsty wagon train let the cattle drink of what they thought was much needed water, but turned out to be alkaline and it poisoned them......bet the cattle thought it tasted good on the way down though:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

QF,
Whatever site we read...we must exercise caution.Among reformed men there are some horrible sites also. I do not think as many, because most all of the reformed men have a confessional base.Let me give an example.

A few years ago the Auburn Avenue conference harmed many churches.
many had respect for Doug Wilson and his work with christian education, and pulpit ministry. He and others went too far in their views...and now are viewed as dangerous ....people are urging them to recover themselves from the errors they taught at that conference.
God alone knows the heart as we know....but openly published error has to be opposed...no matter where it shows up.

Some of these big name pastors, go into print...writing a book....then it makes it harder for them to back out of it.

As time permits....I will go back to that site,and seek to demonstrate what I find very dangerous and indeed poison.

QF....just like in the western movies...the thirsty wagon train let the cattle drink of what they thought was much needed water, but turned out to be alkaline and it poisoned them......bet the cattle thought it tasted good on the way down though:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup:

You do not need to for my sake. I am capable and competent to read most things and determine whether i agree or not, and whether or not I need to keep reading.

 

[Winman]

You do not need to for my sake. I am capable and competent to read most things and determine whether i agree or not, and whether or not I need to keep reading.

He's a legend in his own mind. :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

He's a legend in his own mind. :laugh:

you have drank much from the poison water yourself winman, to a point where you cannot get any verse correct...so I do not worry about your imput.I do not need to see you twist eccl 7:29 over and over again:laugh::laugh:


wait,wait...let me start it for you...all men are born sinless until they commit their own sin...no matter what romans 3 or romans 5 teach....:laugh:

what is legendary is anyone can see what you post, take the opposite position and be correct everytime.

 

[Iconoclast]

You do not need to for my sake. I am capable and competent to read most things and determine whether i agree or not, and whether or not I need to keep reading.

ok qf....it was you who said what
I posted was a low blow...I was going to show why it was not.

 

[Winman]

you have drank much from the poison water yourself winman, to a point where you cannot get any verse correct...so I do not worry about your imput.I do not need to see you twist eccl 7:29 over and over again:laugh::laugh:


wait,wait...let me start it for you...all men are born sinless until they commit their own sin...no matter what romans 3 or romans 5 teach....:laugh:

what is legendary is anyone can see what you post, take the opposite position and be correct everytime.

Have you ever read Romans 9:11?

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

You were so busy misinterpreting this verse to say God unconditionally elects persons (which it is not saying, it is those who answer the call that are elect-Mat 22:14), that you failed to notice it said neither Esau or Jacob had committed any sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

ok qf....it was you who said what
I posted was a low blow...I was going to show why it was not.

You don't NEED to because it will serve no purpose except to cause you to feel an "attaboy" pat on your back. Just as you think I am in error, I feel much the same about your perspective.

 

[Iconoclast]

Have you ever read Romans 9:11?

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

You were so busy misinterpreting this verse to say God unconditionally elects persons (which it is not saying, it is those who answer the call that are elect-Mat 22:14), that you failed to notice it said neither Esau or Jacob had committed any sin.

Winman,
I notice that romans 3 and romans 5 come before romans 9
Jacob and Esau also died and sinned in Adam.

The text is saying , before they sinned by experience...highlighting that God's elective purpose was not based on anything man does, ordoes not do.
So...once again all you have done is show that you resist truth at all costs.:wavey::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

You don't NEED to because it will serve no purpose except to cause you to feel an "attaboy" pat on your back. Just as you think I am in error, I feel much the same about your perspective.

I understand QF. If you need to view it that way to avoid correction..that is fine. You jumped in to accuse me...but you really do not want an explanation.
That is why it is okay. i do not see it as a matter of persrective. I see it as truth and error. The recent posts are solidifying my view even more.:wavey:

At least what we really believe is coming to the surface and being exposed for what it is.

You don't NEED to because it will serve no purpose except to cause you to feel an "attaboy" pat on your back. Just as you think I am in error, I feel much the same about your perspective

No one needs to pat themselves on the back QF...it is not about that. It is about truth or the lack of it. it is about a network of people who work at denying truth ...whatever their motives are...the result is the same.

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

Consider two things:
1.) Olson is capable of writing a sincere article entitled "What I like about Calvinists"
2.) You would be incapable of writing a sincere article entitled "What I like about Arminians"

In this respect: We could all learn something from Olson.

Here is a section from that article hos;

Obviously, I do not agree with the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism–especially divine determinism and monergisow MOST evangelical Calvinist churches teach theology/doctrine and how to integrate that into everyday spirituality and ordinary life. That kind of integration of theology/doctrine with practice is too rare in non-Calvinist churches. I do not say it is absent; I only say it is too rare.[/B]
I have never been a member of or regularly attended a Calvinist church. I’ve only visited them. But I have had many Calvinist speakers, both pastors and lay people, visit my classes and speak to them. They always seem to have a ready answer to questions about practical matters such as preaching, praying, worshiping, witnessing, etc., and how those are affected by their Calvinism. [/B]The same has not as often been true of non-Calvinist visiting speakers.
I think part of the problem is that most non-Calvinists don’t know what they are–theologically.



So, it’s easy for them to fall into practicing the Christian faith AS IF Calvinism were true when, IN FACT, they do not actually agree with the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism.

A case in point is prayer for friends and loved ones who are not saved. I know many non-Calvinists who pray, and see nothing wrong with praying, that God will simply “save” them. Of course, only a Calvinist (whether by that label or under another one) can reasonably ask God simply to “save” someone.

Because he opposes the truths known as calvinism...he can only ...look and make an observation... that many cals have a complete worldview that is bible based in every detail.

He fails to realize however that is the very teaching of God given truth that brings about this result. What he sees as missing in non cal churches should not come as a surprise...because that teaching is missing.

When people study themselves into the truth on these matters, they move on because the church they are in does not want to follow them in study.

A non cal coming into a cal assembly does not disturb anyone because they see what they believe and what they do not yet believe.

A cal coming into a non cal church sends them into panic because they are afraid he will open up verses that no one in the church understands...so they get accused of being divisive,arrogant , and every other thing.
Or some very sactimoniously say...well that is fine for you , but I do not want to look at that teaching, or i have "looked at it" and do not like it.

Our friend Mr. Olson senses this when he says this;

This is why I say that Calvinists need to go to Calvinist churches and non-Calvinists need to go to non-Calvinist churches. In mixed congregations two things happen. Either the subject is ignored or there’s tremendous cognitive dissonance among the congregants leading eventually to division.

 

[thomas15]

What?!? No mirrors in your home Icon?


ROF-:laugh:

They are all broken! :laugh: