Posted on 07/28/2003 1:24:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Total inability means that the person is unable to respond to any light the Holy Spirit gives until he is first regenerated.
The Arminian position is that while one is depraved, one can respond to the Gospel light before one is Regenerated.
That is the difference between the two views.
Like it or not.
That is what I am saying here. Words mean things, and you avoid clear meaning in order to keep from yielding any ground. Total intellectual dishonesty. Sometimes you're practically break-dancing in order to avoid admitting anything. Your bobbing and weaving is pretty intense sometimes. This is one of those times.
Hey, why don't you check with the Arminians on what Total Inability means (the grammarian, Corin Stormhands, Xzins, Winston Churchill) they are honest guys.
If I am wrong, they will correct me.
You on the other hand, do not know what you are talking about and are just trying to score points with the Calvinistic cabal.
Waste someone elses time.
More empty rhetoric.
Do you ever supply any facts?
Maybe those are the result of leaving Arminianism rather then the logical results of it.
LOL! So my own personal experiences are nothing more than empty rhetoric? Whatever...I've seen it first-hand. I know what I've seen, and you don't, so you cannot pass judgment on it. Want facts? Here's some:
They, the Arminians who are Freewill Theists, are not willing to concede that God knows all things, at least not in the traditional sense. For example, Clark Pinnock argues that "omniscience need not mean exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. if that were its meaning, the future would be fixed and determined, as is the past." For them, the idea of foreknowledge "requires only that we define the scope of foreknowledge with care. In some respects the future is knowable, in others it is not. God knows a great deal about what will happen. He knows everything that will ever happen as the direct result of factors that already exist. He knows infallibly the content of his own future actions, to the extent that they are not related to human choices… All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur." The problem with Rice's seemingly harmless formulation is that the whole future, as envisioned by this explanation, is filled with nothing but numerous human decisions. In order for God to know even two seconds into the future, God must know the decisions of the first second which He is not permitted to know (or, as they argue, He chose not to know). If He does not know it, then how can He know His own future actions when they are dependent upon the free acts of man? Thus God in fact does not know the future at all because He does not know our decisions nor His responses to them. Rice is even more adamant in another book: "Not even God knows the future in all its details. Some parts remain indefinite until they actually occur, and so they can't be known in advance." This sort of formulation is gaining ground among some evangelicals. This would quite naturally lead to the notion of "divine learning." Namely, God must learn as the future unfolds. May it never be said that He infallibly knows all things. In fact, without much shame, they virtually concede in some measure that God is surprised. "God is not startled and is never struck dumb as the future unfolds, but an element of surprise embraces the divine knowledge just as it does ours even when we think our predictive powers are at their height. Were you a god, would you not find it dull to fix the future irrevocably from eternity?" That last question typifies and exposes their theological tendency, namely, God created in the image of man. In response, I ask, "What does it matter if I should be bored? How does my own boredom determine the nature of God's knowledge? And in what real sense do we have any predictive powers? Isn't God's predictive power the sheer evidence of His majestic divinity?" Yet Rice's assumption admits this central thesis: God is merely a superhuman being. From Arminianism Exposed - Part I - Mark Herzer Arminians detest the doctrine of predestination as presented by Calvinists. Since the word itself is Biblical, Arminians are forced to define the term in a manner consonant with their assumptions. In order to do that, they must recast the traditional doctrines related to God's knowledge. Most of us have no problem saying that God knows all things; but this has vexed most Arminians. Many evangelical thinkers are promoting what is called "free will theism" or "the openness of God" theism. Such is the direct result of Arminian theology pushed to its logical tendencies. Gregory Boyd, who himself is an Arminian, has argued that "Arminian theologians have not generally followed through the logic of their insight into the nature of creaturely freedom to its logical (and biblical) conclusions." Their view is astounding.
Hmmm...Seems like there are some Arminians out there saying some pretty outlandish things...and not very scriptural. Especially when you look at quotes from the authors themselves...Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, and Gregory Boyd...Arminians all, and proud of it.
You wanted facts, you got 'em, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, bub!
I guess you comprehension skills are still a little weak...you still want to try and tell me what I believe, as though I didn't know it, and then you want to tell me what you believe, and have no scripture to back up.
You believe in a universal Grace, do you not? If so, tell me what the scriptural basis for that is.
Is it true that you believe that Christ's death on the cross removed the original judgment for sin from man, leaving him only to answer for his relationship to the Son? That what will condemn a man is not his sins, but rejection of Christ? But isn't unbelief a sin?
Do you believe in Synergism in Salvation, Justification, and Repentence? Chapter and verse please!
You don't NEED one!!
1 Corinthians 2:12-13
12. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
| John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. |
Not.. "..taught by an apologetic..." Do ALL of the many OT references to Rock just fly by blind eyes and not sink into the understanding???
James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
No one will judged for their sins at the Great White Throne Judgement.
The 'sin'of unbelief will put them there, but it will not be held against them since it was paid for at the Cross.
However, since the individual has not taken the free gift of salvation (Rom.6:23) he will stand on his own righteousness, hence the books of works will be opened at the Great White Throne Judgement.
Since his name is not in the Book of life, his righteous acts will be added up.
They will fall short (Isa.64:6) and he will be condemned to the Lake of Fire.
Hey 'bud' those are not the representives of Arminianism.
Both Arminius and Wesley held to an 'all knowing' God.
I merely wanted to make sure that you are not going by any ONE organizations take on the Scriptures.
I liked your comments on your FR homepage, in fact, I lifted your Mother Theresa quote to use as my e-mail signature.
(Any comment on the Rocks?)
A little leaven leavens the whole lump...
Is that right?
And the Calvinists have remained a baston of orthodoxy have they?
I hear that there are Presbyterian churches ordaining women to preach now!
A considerable problem to Arminians is that they have often been misrepresented. Some scholars have said that Arminianism is Pelagian, is a form of theological liberalism, and is syncretistic. It is true that one wing of Arminianism picked up Arminius's stress on human freedom and tolerance toward differing theologies, becoming latitudinarian and liberal. Indeed the two denominations in Holland that issued from Arminius are largely such today. But Arminians who promote Arminius's actual teachings and those of the great Arminian John Wesley, whose view and movement have sometimes been called "Arminianism of fire," have disclaimed all those theologically left associations. Such Arminians largely comprise the eight million or so Christians who today constitute the Christian Holiness Association (the Salvation Army, the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyan Church, etc.). (emphasis added)
This kind of Arminianism strongly defends Christ's virgin birth, miracles, bodily resurrection, and substitutionary atonement (his suffering for the punishment believers would have received); the dynamic inspiration and infallibility of Scripture; justification by grace alone through faith alone; and the final destinies of heaven and hell. It is therefore evangelical, but an evangelicalism which is at certain important points different from evangelical Calvinism.
J K Grider
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/arminian.htm (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
http://www.reformed.com/pub/sola.htm
I think you better get the log out of your own eye!
What we were talking about is what each system represents in its pure form, not those who deviate from them.
But no Calvinist can resist heresy hunting so he can appear orthodox by comparsion.
Just like any Old Testament Pharisee.
So you would agree with me that liberal Arminianism and Open Theism are in error, to say the least? I hope so!
It isn't heresy hunting, Ed. The fact of the matter is, you would stand condemned by that same standard. I have been researching Arminianism, and found an awful lot about those things in my search. I have found other things too, but I found the Open Theists quite alarming. I would think that any self-respecting Arminian would immediately and quite vocally separate themselves from such teaching. You didn't until pressed. So what was I to think? In the absence of facts to the contrary, one could assume that you held with them. If you don't, then praise God!
In your comment are a couple of those prejudicial statements I was talking to you about. Maybe you felt justified in writing them, but they only serve to inflame. Insults can be traded, but they don't further the conversation. They only create hard feelings, which are not fruits of the Spirit.
It says they will be judged for their works. What is that but sins, if they be unbelievers? The wicked have no righteous acts to add up, it's ALL sin!
I have held that all along, as do most of the Arminians on Free Republic.
It isn't heresy hunting, Ed. The fact of the matter is, you would stand condemned by that same standard. I have been researching Arminianism, and found an awful lot about those things in my search. I have found other things too, but I found the Open Theists quite alarming. I would think that any self-respecting Arminian would immediately and quite vocally separate themselves from such teaching. You didn't until pressed.
Go soak your head in some cold water and wake up.
I have had many discussions on open theism and have voiced my rejection of it.
I have recently posted two articles on middle knowledge a view I do hold to.
So what was I to think? In the absence of facts to the contrary, one could assume that you held with them. If you don't, then praise God!
Well, first you could have asked before assuming anything.
Second, I am not an Arminian, I am a Bible believing Baptist, so I do not hold to every position the Arminians hold to.
Third, the heresies that have come out of Arminianism is not the issue, but wheather in its pure form, it is Biblically correct.
Once a Calvinist cannot find a way to defend unconditional election he has to start looking around for ways to discredit the opposition.
I have been 'goggle searched' by you guys to find out who I am for the sole purpose of finding some great heresy you can tag me with.
In your comment are a couple of those prejudicial statements I was talking to you about. Maybe you felt justified in writing them, but they only serve to inflame. Insults can be traded, but they don't further the conversation. They only create hard feelings, which are not fruits of the Spirit.
You have accused me of lying about my 'Armininism'.
Your tone in these posts has been hostile and condescending.
That is the spirit of Calvinism, as admirably represented by the cabal.
Thats not what Isa.64:6 says.
It says our righteousness are as filthy rags.
In the next line, Isaiah mentions sins and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away
Unregnerate men do 'good' acts all the time, sometimes even the Lord himself will commend them for it (Luke 10)
But those 'good' acts cannot get anyone into heaven.
That is the spirit of Calvinism, as admirably represented by the cabal.
But no Calvinist can resist heresy hunting so he can appear orthodox by comparsion. Just like any Old Testament Pharisee.
When will it stop??
I believe that is the traditional Arminian view of the Atonement.
I believe that the sins were paid for and that no man will be judged for them, they will rather be judged for their works, which will always fall short of the Righteousness needed for salvation (Mt.5:20)
That however is an issue of the Atonement and not the real question that we are addressing here in regards to unconditonal vs conditional election.
Is man 'elect' because he believes or does man believe because he is 'elect'
When the Calvinists either learn to deal respectfully with those who disagree with them or stop posting!
Frankly, I do not expect either to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.