Posted on 03/16/2002 6:42:19 AM PST by LarryLied
The problem here my friend, is that some people cannot accept the fact that it was OUR sin that put Him on that cross.
Some seek to justify themselves by the kind of people they like to think they are -- more moral, sensitive, loving, intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic, fashionable or socially aware than others. Then there's the opposite, people who tell themselves they're more misunderstood, long-suffering and deserving than anyone else.
Perfect description of liberal thought. I and most of the people I know have no problem believing we are sinners. I also do not consider myself better or more deserving than anyone else. It is the liberal thought process that creates these distinctions. They are all bigots and since that is all they know they assume everyone else is like that too. Pitiful.
So, my friend, are you saying that someone from the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition is NOT a Christian? and where did you get that quote "neutralized by universal prevenient grace?" Inquiring minds need to know.
So, my friend, are you saying that someone from the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition is NOT a Christian? and where did you get that quote "neutralized by universal prevenient grace?" Inquiring minds need to know.
You have a way with words! That sums up the meaning of the cross very well.
The Reformed tradition has a strong tendency to misinterpret God's grace. Wesleyan-Armenians do not believe that sin is "neutralized." We believe, in contrast to the Reformed/Calvinists, that God's grace is available to everyone, not just the "elect." There is a huge difference between that and saying that sin is "neutralized by universal prevenient grace."
Hardly. WesArmism teaches that "Jesus is the light who lightens EVERYONE who comes into the world." It teaches that the Lord himself brings the individual to a point where they can make a real, valid choice between real, valid alternatives. This "prevenient grace" doesn't CHANGE THE DEPRAVITY in any way. It is simply a mericiful intervention by a merciful God.
It makes MORE sense to say that Calvinism "neutralizes total depravity." In c'vism God "forces the individual" OUTSIDE of their depravity FOR GOOD. That's neutralizing TD.
The reference to universal prevenient grace was Wesley's own variation on Arminianism.
Which you completely distort when you say: which claims that the depravity inherent in original sin is neutralized by universal prevenient grace
You know very well that the concept of prevenient grace does not neutralize man's sin, but that it means that God's grace is available to everyone as opposed to your Calvinist view of grace which is only available to the "elect."
It is one thing to disagree with the Wesleyan-Arminian position. It is an entirely different thing when you dishonestly represent it, when you have a clear grasp of the difference.
It's not because of what it reminds us of in the death of Christ. ("God forbid that I should glory save in in the cross of Christ.") The problem is, visible objects are sometimes used in lieu of saving faith.
So, objecting to the use of crosses is based on a serious concern about idolatry. This is not really what the article is talking about.
(Protestants do object to the RC mass, too--and the reasons are related to what you mentioned--but more important, we object on the specific grounds that the sacrifice of the mass violates the Book of Hebrews, especially Hebrews 10.)
You still haven't explained 1 Corinthians 2:14 correctly. You have merely appealed to a theory of universal prevenient grace as the logical fix for the conundrum. So, my statement was correct.
And then these churchified unbelievers will try to use pieces of the scripture they reject to talk about the cross, or about baptism, or about communion. Their religion is all form and pagentry. They'll argue in anger about "not rebaptising infants." But they reject the scriptures they use to make their case.
What silliness!!
If you want to continue this discussion, please start another thread or go back to the "Defense" thread.
He's no more Catholic than a Buddhist!
Because someone is a baptized Catholic, doesn't mean they are livng a Catholic life. That is, we are called to LIVE the gospel. This guy Crossan is a disgrace to Christianity. His association with the Jesus Seminar should be an indication that he is a CINO. I'm scandalized by many in my church but he's one of the worst!
You flatter yourself. In your original post you said:
Brock comes from the Campbellite tradition (which denies original sin altogether); Parker comes from the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition (which claims that the depravity inherent in original sin is neutralized by universal prevenient grace); and Crossan comes from the Romanist position which assumes that, whatever original sin is, it is easily washed away by holy water.
The implication following your statement about Brock is that the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition says sin is neutralized by prevenient grace. That is not true, whether you meant to imply it or not.
I'm inclined to agree with Shadow that this discussion is better served on the other thread. I don't think any of us have a problem with the fact that the "ministers" in this article aren't anywhere close to the truth.
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.