Why Does "Arminian Theology" get A bad name here On BB?

[Don]

If this in fact what arminianism teaches, it is simply another flaw in this non-cal theology.

Galtaians 2:20 refutes this error.

"If"?

You've been shucking on arminians all this time, and you don't even know what the basics of arminianism are?

 

[Don]

I asked you questions about this before. You said that" He blots out those [presumably their sins] who call out to Him and He saves."

If He died for each and every person past,present and future --why do the majority go to perdition? How can His death be meaningful for someone when they end up in second death? He died for them --suffered for them -but they enter eternal torment anyway.

If He really died for each and every person --head-for-head then all must be saved --hence a Universalist theology. I don't know how you can get around this. If He died in their [all humanity]place --substitutionary atonement --they are forgiven,justified. The Lord is their intercessor. They cannot go through the second death.

But non-cals i.e. Arminians say that Christ did not die for anyone in particular --everyone in general. It makes no sense.

But all true Christians agree with this --all of the elect --and they alone will go to glory --any genuine Christian will have to admit that it is indeed true that Christ died for His elect. Only those are effectually redeemed --it can't be said of anyone else that Christ is supposed to have died for yet end up in the Lake of Fire.

Any real believer will have to confess that it will only be those whose names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the creation of the world --will be saved.

Just as Calvin wrote--which Quantum quoted--the gift of salvation is extended to all; i.e., "offered."

I once asked a young lady, if I bought all the tickets to a movie that she really wanted to see, and then offered her one of the tickets for free, nothing in return, wouldn't that be great? And to my surprise, she said no, she'd rather earn or buy the ticket herself.

The gift is offered to all; but not all will receive.

 

[preacher4truth]

"If"?

You've been shucking on arminians all this time, and you don't even know what the basics of arminianism are?

Yes "If". Not all arminians agree on all points of their ideologies.

 

[webdog]

"If"?

You've been shucking on arminians all this time, and you don't even know what the basics of arminianism are?

About sums it up.

 

[Don]

Yes "If". Not all arminians agree on all points of their ideologies.

I take it, you're quoting those who say the same about calvinists? :tongue3:

As long as you're not trying to rope pelagians and semi-pelagians into the same group as classical arminians....

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes "If". Not all arminians agree on all points of their ideologies.

And niether do "non-arminians", and btw it is "theology" not ideology.

 

[convicted1]

And when he says, the sin OF THE WORLD, He extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that He had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to Him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to Him by the guidance of faith.

John Calvin

John Calvin, "Commentary on the Gospel According to John," in Calvin's Commentaries, vol. XVII, trans. Rev. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 64

I think some on here "out-Calvin" John Calvin.......

 

[convicted1]

I asked you questions about this before. You said that" He blots out those [presumably their sins] who call out to Him and He saves."

Not one sinner who calls upon His sweet name, will He cast aside.

If He died for each and every person past,present and future --why do the majority go to perdition? How can His death be meaningful for someone when they end up in second death? He died for them --suffered for them -but they enter eternal torment anyway.

They refused to repent and believe the Gospel.

If He really died for each and every person --head-for-head then all must be saved --hence a Universalist theology. I don't know how you can get around this. If He died in their [all humanity]place --substitutionary atonement --they are forgiven,justified. The Lord is their intercessor. They cannot go through the second death.

Never even alluded to a "universalist" stance. That is something you brought to this discussion, not me. Romans 5:6 states that "Christ died for the ungodly". Since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, then that makes everyone ungodly, huh?

But non-cals i.e. Arminians say that Christ did not die for anyone in particular --everyone in general. It makes no sense.

Well, this much I know, He died for me, and I am thankful for that. But again, go and read John 3:16 amd Romans 5:6, and you'll find your answer.

But all true Christians agree with this --all of the elect --and they alone will go to glory --any genuine Christian will have to admit that it is indeed true that Christ died for His elect. Only those are effectually redeemed --it can't be said of anyone else that Christ is supposed to have died for yet end up in the Lake of Fire.

This sounds like a broken record or maybe you need to change your "needle". It's the same "song" you're playing over and over and over....

Any real believer will have to confess that it will only be those whose names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the creation of the world --will be saved.

To quote a line from the '90's rap group Digital Underground"; All around the world, "same song".

 

[preacher4truth]

I take it, you're quoting those who say the same about calvinists? :tongue3:

As long as you're not trying to rope pelagians and semi-pelagians into the same group as classical arminians....

They rope themselves well enough on their own.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not one sinner who calls upon His sweet name, will He cast aside.



They refused to repent and believe the Gospel.



Never even alluded to a "universalist" stance. That is something you brought to this discussion, not me. Romans 5:6 states that "Christ died for the ungodly". Since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, then that makes everyone ungodly, huh?




Well, this much I know, He died for me, and I am thankful for that. But again, go and read John 3:16 amd Romans 5:6, and you'll find your answer.




This sounds like a broken record or maybe you need to change your "needle". It's the same "song" you're playing over and over and over....


To borrow some "phraseology" from my fellow believers who happen to be calvinistic:




To quote a line from the '90's rap group Digital Underground"; All around the world, "same song".

Sufficient for all, efficient for those who believe in and have faith in Christ.

 

[convicted1]

Sufficient for all, efficient for those who believe in and have faith in Christ.

To borrow your line: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Don]

I think some on here "out-Calvin" John Calvin.......

Which is why some of the threads have been emphasizing supra, infra, and other variations on calvinism...not to mention classical arminianism, wesleyan arminianism, open view, pelagianism, semi-pel, lutheranism....

 

[JesusFan]

Which is why some of the threads have been emphasizing supra, infra, and other variations on calvinism...not to mention classical arminianism, wesleyan arminianism, open view, pelagianism, semi-pel, lutheranism....

Just curious, as to which model of that would you fall under?

 

[Don]

As I've stated in a couple of other threads, I am best described as primarily classical arminianism, with tendencies toward amyraldist calvinism.

 

[Iconoclast]

What many five-point Calvinists demand from their four-point Calvinist and non-Calvinist brothers and sisters is how could God send unbelievers to hell if Christ's atoning sacrifice was made for them. This erroneous question has two very basic problems: 1) the assumption that Christ's atonement is automatically applied to anyone; and 2) the assumption that the application of Christ's atonement is unconditional.

1) Christ Jesus died on behalf of the whole world. That much has been sufficiently proved from Scripture thus far. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Humanity was separated from God because of sin (Eph. 2:1). God reconciled the world back to Himself through Christ's sacrifice, so that, and this is crucial for a proper understanding of the Arminian or non-Calvinist position, only by faith in Jesus Christ is one atoned and counted righteous by God. Christ Jesus did the work of atonement for all people, but only those whose faith in Him will have that atonement applied to them personally.

The writer errors severely in this article. While the reconciliation is worldwide in scope.....it is not extended to everyone....God was INChrist reconciling the world to himself.

To remain outside of Christ is to be unreconciled.Salvation is never in the word of God because of faith.....it is always, by or through faith.



The Holy Spirit is now at work in the hearts and minds of sinners, convicting them of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11), setting sinners free from their bondage to sin in order for them to freely trust in Christ Jesus. Though the world has been reconciled back to God through Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:19), only by faith in Christ Jesus is one saved and atoned by His blood. Paul admitted that God reconciled the world through Christ, and then urged the Corinthians to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). Clearly, there is a distinction between the work God did in Christ generally for all people, and that each person is responsible to be reconciled personally to God through faith in Jesus Christ.

This shows his complete lack of understanding of the passage.



2) We must not assume that Christ's sacrifice saves anyone apart from personal faith in Him. Salvation, atonement, justification and forgiveness, imputed righteousness, adoption, etc. depends upon, and solely upon, faith in Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus Christ "paid the price" for the sins of all people, but not automatically. The atonement, the "price," is applied only to the one whose faith is in Christ Jesus. Hence there is no such thing as a "double payment."

this is horrendous.....Jesus accomplished redemption Heb9'12....he did not just make it possible.

This writer denies the actual substitutionary aspect of Jesus covenant death. Potential does not equal actual.

 

[JesusFan]

this is horrendous.....Jesus accomplished redemption Heb9'12....he did not just make it possible.

This writer denies the actual substitutionary aspect of Jesus covenant death. Potential does not equal actual.

jesus death upon the Cross has the "potential" to save ALL who ever lived, in that its value is infinite, as God Himself died on the Cross and she His blood, but ONLY those who place faith in him and His work gets the benfit of that, and Man is dead in sin, so God HAS to enable those thathe has freely chosen to be able to place their faith in Chrsit and get saved!

Penal substitution, as Jesus paid the sin debt owed to God by us, and WHEN HE DIED, THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED AND PAID IN FULL!

 

[quantumfaith]

this is horrendous.....Jesus accomplished redemption Heb9'12....he did not just make it possible.

This writer denies the actual substitutionary aspect of Jesus covenant death. Potential does not equal actual.

I am sorry YOU think it is horrendous. I do not share YOUR perspective.

 

[Rippon]

Just as Calvin wrote--which Quantum quoted--the gift of salvation is extended to all; i.e., "offered."

The gift is offered to all; but not all will receive.

I prefer the term extended. The rendering of offered is sending mixed signals.

So what in the world are you and QF trying to prove? I believe,as do all Calvinists that we should send out the proclamation of the Gospel far and wide --indiscriminately.

That has nothing to do with definite atonement.

 

[Rippon]

But all true Christians agree with this --all of the elect --and they alone will go to glory --any genuine Christian will have to admit that it is indeed true that Christ died for His elect. Only those are effectually redeemed --it can't be said of anyone else that Christ is supposed to have died for yet end up in the Lake of Fire.

Any real believer will have to confess that it will only be those whose names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the creation of the world --will be saved.

All Convicted said was that I sound like a broken record saying the above.

But the question is : Do you agree with what I said or not?

 

[Iconoclast]

I am sorry YOU think it is horrendous. I do not share YOUR perspective.

QF,
I know you do not share this view. To say that the cross did nothing {unless} man adds to it....faith, belief, whatever, is to say that the crosswork did not actually do anything.
If no man adds faith or something to it......it did not save anybody???

Isa 53 declares;

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Those who approach the cross in this manner...[potential, not actual] are attempting to re-write what scripture declares to be so. Then they try and smooth it over as if it were the same gospel.....but it is not according to the scripture.

Man has to believe in order to be saved...yes.
Men have to exercise faith...yes........and everyone believing will be saved.
There will be no one in hell who really wanted God's mercy instead of his sin.

For the writer to claim calvinists miss the issue is the point at which he lacks understanding.
I am glad you posted the article.The person was trying to find middle ground,and provide a solution that he "feels' might work for many.
I do not believe he has come to truth on this....saying the world is reconciled to God is ludicrous......al quieda is reconciled to God???? Not in my world.