On Free Grace

Wesley Center of Applied Theology | 1740 | John Wesley

[CCWoody]

Unconditional Election: BEFORE CREATION GOD HAS ELECTED FOR HIS OWN REASONS SOME FOR BELIEVING UNTO GLORY AND SOME FOR DAMNATION.

Before the foundation of the world, God has elected, for the sake of His own glory out of the mass of those who hate Him, to glorification in Him; the rest He left in their God hating filth.

But, I probably will accept what OP and Jerry put forth.

[Jerry_M]

"Unconditional Election: BEFORE CREATION GOD HAS ELECTED FOR HIS OWN REASONS SOME FOR BELIEVING UNTO GLORY AND SOME FOR DAMNATION."

Nope.

I would suggest: God has elected, in accordance with His own will, and without regard for the merit of those elected (due to the fact that they have none, they are "Totally Depraved"), some for salvation. The rest He has left in their sins. In all cases, He is glorified.

[Ward Smythe]

Speaking on behalf of the Calvinists, we will respectfully refuse to consider further points of the Remonstration (the 5-point debate) until our definition of the T is either disproven as Biblical, or accepted as Biblical.

Otherwise what? You'll take your Institutes and go home?

Respectfully, you forgot to say "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo."

[xzins]

And this preacher is predestined to teach at tonight's prayer meeting the 15th chapter of Acts (we're going through Acts.)

If I'm back on tonight it'll be after 11:00. My alma mater (Univ Cincinnati Bearcats are on ESPN2....they're 25-2 at this point fighting for a #1 Seed in the NCAA.)

I hope they're predestinated to win.

[Jerry_M]

Good point. It is fruitless to continue discussing anything else without some closure on "T".

If we are Biblically wrong on "T", then there is no reason discussing anything else. If the Calvinist is wrong, and man is not "Totally Depraved", then it really doesn't matter what we think about the solution to this "Total Depravity", does it?

As a result, I withdraw my definition of "U", unless xzins will concur with us concerning the state of man.

[RnMomof7]

Speaking on behalf of the Calvinists, we will respectfully refuse to consider further points of the Remonstration (the 5-point debate) until our definition of the T is either disproven as Biblical, or accepted as Biblical.

This seems corect. As it was a founding doctrine of the Reformation it seems the burden is theirs to prove!

[xzins]

You weren't part of the decision to do this. The point arose because we Arminians kept being accused of misunderstanding the various points of tulip (not just the T.) This has nothing to do with proving it or disproving it. It has to do with YOUR helping us to understand it correctly so we will be better able to speak to it.

Now, are you gonna be a stick in the mud, or are you gonna help with this project? :-)

[Jerry_M]

"I hope they're predestinated to win."

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. - Proverbs 16:33

You weren't mocking now, were you? (Considering the fact that Wesley seemed to put a whole lot of confidence in casting lots, I certainly would hope not.)

[Jean Chauvin]

Sorry. Christian Reformed Church. Up until recently, they were a sound denomination, now they have all but abandoned their reformed doctrines. Like the PC-USA now pays mere lip service to their calvinistic confessions, the CRC is well on its way to doing the same.

My tendency to use the initials betrays habbit and probably the fact I assume you should know based on the old habbits that the CRC thinks they are bigger and more important than they really are.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

Sorry. Christian Reformed Church. Up until recently, they were a sound denomination, now they have all but abandoned their reformed doctrines. Like the PC-USA now pays mere lip service to their calvinistic confessions, the CRC is well on its way to doing the same.

My tendency to use the initials betrays habbit and probably the fact I assume you should know based on the old habbits that the CRC thinks they are bigger and more important than they really are.

Jean

[Jerry_M]

" It has to do with YOUR helping us to understand it correctly so we will be better able to speak to it."

And that is exactly what we are doing. How do we know if you fully understand it unless we see your (hopefully succinct) objection?

[Jean Chauvin]

Sorry. Christian Reformed Church. Up until recently, they were a sound denomination, now they have all but abandoned their reformed doctrines. Like the PC-USA now pays mere lip service to their calvinistic confessions, the CRC is well on its way to doing the same.

My tendency to use the initials betrays habbit and probably the fact I assume you should know based on the old habbits that the CRC thinks they are bigger and more important than they really are.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

Sorry. Christian Reformed Church. Up until recently, they were a sound denomination, now they have all but abandoned their reformed doctrines. Like the PC-USA now pays mere lip service to their calvinistic confessions, the CRC is well on its way to doing the same.

My tendency to use the initials betrays habbit and probably the fact I assume you should know based on the old habbits that the CRC thinks they are bigger and more important than they really are.

Jean

[xzins]

Jerry, you know the purpose was correct understanding.

There is nothing to prevent my posting my condensations and considering your silence to be a nod that we go ahead and use them. Then you can object to it and we can iron it out amidst discussion.

Why get weird on us at this point? It's a definition, man.

[stuartcr]

I don't understand how one can be 'biblically wrong'.

[Wrigley]

We heard you the first time, Jean. :-)

[Jerry_M]

"There is nothing to prevent my posting my condensations and considering your silence to be a nod that we go ahead and use them."

Other than the fact that I have stated that I will not allow my silence to be a nod, and that I won't participate unless you give us a succinct objection to the "T".

Yes, it is about understanding, let's take it one point at a time. We will see just how well you "understand" when we see your objection.

Nothing "wierd" about it.

[Jean Chauvin]

I REALLY REALLY want you to read my posts!

Sorry for the multiple posts, having connection problems. You'd think a satellite connection would be foolproof! HA

Jean

[RnMomof7]

We heard you the first time, Jean. :-)>

Some things bear repeating and repeating and repeating and.........*grin*

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Otherwise what? You'll take your Institutes and go home? Respectfully, you forgot to say "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo."

Respectfully, my point stands, whether or not I should care to annex a "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" to my statement of the point.

If our definition of Total Depravity is Biblically incorrect, then there is no need to procede to the next point of the Remonstration; our position would be groundless.

On The Other Hand, if our definition of Total Depravity is Biblically correct, we may then examine the next point to determine the rectitude thereof.

Ergo, we request the arminian objection (if any) to the doctrine of Total Depravity, summed in one sentence, or your agreement that the doctrine of Total Depravity, as stated, is Biblically Correct.

After that point is addressed, we shall be delighted to proceed.

So, naturally, I expect that you will kindly either address our definition, or agree thereto, before we proceed. Thanks.

Best,
Op