Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Not at all, Woody knows that WM inserts himself at various times on these threads, and then punches the "ABUSE" button whenever we tell him that he should embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If I told you why WM does this, he would probably accuse me of Mormon bashing, so I won't.
Here comes the "I".
T - - Total Depravity means that Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ.
U - - Unconditional Election means that God has elected for His own glory, in accordance with His own will and without regard for the merit of those elected, some for salvation and some to be left in their sins.
L - - Limited Atonement means that Christ died specifically and only for the sins of those who would ever truly believe in Him.
I - - Irresistible Grace means that the elect are incapable of resisting the inward call to repentance and salvation by the Holy Spirit..
We took the effort to nail down our understanding of "T", but then spent a considerable amount of effort spinning our wheels trying to get you to address it. Eventually you come out with "I don't agree", but then refuse to post reasons why you disagree. (I get the feeling that you can't give us a rationale explanation of why it is wrong, you just feel that it must be wrong.)
Doesn't seem like you are interested in promoting understanding, it appears to me that your plot is to develop neat cubby holes in which you can place us and thus feel comfortable that you can dismiss us because our cubby holes are not to your liking.
This "exercise" may make you feel good, but we refuse to participate, believing that we know your ulterior motive.
When you decide that you want to participate in a discussion designed to foster understanding, then we will continue. Until that time we will occupy ourselves with other things.
I disagree with your presentation of "U" (It left out a very important component of my 302).
I disagree with your presentation of "L".
I disagree with your presentation of "I"
(And, I will disagree with your presentation of "P")
This is where we stand unless and until you state, succinctly, your disagreement with "T". You have no concurrence from me that you are on the right track.
Ward, you must have a Weslyan chip on your shoulder the size of a 2X4. Over the past 8 months, I have discussed the true nature of God with WM off and on, most recently early this year on his false belief that Adam is Michael the Archangel and is the Ancient of Days. As much as you would like this to stick, it simply will not.
Apology coming....?
Q: "What makes the elect special?"
A: Nothing, save for God's redeeming grace. The elect have nothing about which they can be selfishly proud. As Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
You have yet to address my Post Seventy-Five.
Is there a reason why you are ducking it? Do you see the "logical" difficulty it poses for you?
I'm afraid it does. I don't care how long you've discussed it, you all insist on framing the debate only on your terms.
What are you afraid of Woody? If what you say is the truth, then it is the truth whether your detractors are Mormon, Hindu or Ferengi.
Arrogance. That's all it is.
I'm sorry Jerry, I thought we were discussing one issue at a time.
Here comes the "P".
T - - Total Depravity means that Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ.
U - - Unconditional Election means that God has elected for His own glory, in accordance with His own will and without regard for the merit of those elected, some for salvation and some to be left in their sins.
L - - Limited Atonement means that Christ died specifically and only for the sins of those who would ever truly believe in Him.
I - - Irresistible Grace means that the elect are incapable of resisting the inward call to repentance and salvation by the Holy Spirit..
P - - Perseverance of the Saints means that all those who are truly saved will certainly be brought to heaven and to glorification and will never be lost.
Since 175 was posted way in advance of the latest developments, and was never addressed, I felt that it was fair game for discussion.
Are you guys afraid if we see all five points at once we'll know what you're really saying? Seems like xzins has put it pretty plainly.
But, for the record, I do not recognize you as spiritual authority or your authority to set the terms of the debate. So, I will respond if and when I choose.
Discrenment is a spiritual gift. We are not to be unequally yoked ftd..
Based on almost two years discussion with non-Calvinists on FR, here is what I perceive them to believe:
1) Man is inherently good, and just has a problem making bad decisions. It is felt that he will get right with God on his own, given half a chance.
2) Anyone, at anytime, and for any reason, can patch things up with God, and things will be just "hunky-dory between them, just so long as they exercise their free-will.
3) Jesus died for everyone, and even whispered in Joe Stalin's ear just before he died and gave him full forgiveness of all his sins. There is no sin problem, Jesus took care of that for everyone, everywhere, without exception.
4) God offers salvation to all everywhere equally. The fact that many haven't heard the Gospel isn't a problem, since God understands their limitations and makes exceptions for them.
5) As long as men continue to hold tightly to God, and don't let go, they might make it into heaven in the end. After all, it is all the result of their choices, and they can choose to let go and turn their backs on God anytime they feel like it. However, even if they do this, they will probably be given lots of second chances.
Now, is that a fair characterization of the non-Calvinist's beliefs? Probably not, but then again, you have to realize that this is just what I preceive. You really need to help this poor ignorant Calvinist out, beginning with the first point. We seem to get stuck on the nature of man as it relates to this conversation.
Of course not, why do you think that I posted the website with the material we were using as the basis for this discussion? (You really should see just how silly your objection is, as to your points about authority, they are totally out of line, and not deserving of further comment.)
How about my characterization of your beliefs, do you think that I got that right? Are you afraid that I might really know what you guys believe?
I didn't get the memo.
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.