Arminianism, Synergism, Free Grace theology

[Hammster]

Then I would ask you the same question that I asked Skala above.

Are you planning on participating in the thread? Skala and I are pretty much Peanut Gallerey-ing this one. We are so looking forward to the big discussion that's sure to transpire.

 

[Tzaousios]

Are you planning on participating in the thread? Skala and I are pretty much Peanut Gallerey-ing this one. We are so looking forward to the big discussion that's sure to transpire.

Yes, I am participating first by asking for clarification. Will you please answer my question?

 

[Hammster]

Yes, I am participating first by asking for clarification. Will you please answer my question?

It had nothing to do with the OP. If you aren't reformed, you can give your answer to it as well.

 

[Tzaousios]

It had nothing to do with the OP. If you aren't reformed, you can give your answer to it as well.

No, my reply addressed exactly what Skala said in asking for clarification, and also you when you expressed agreement with his subsequent comment. Please provide this information.

 

[Hammster]

No, my reply addressed exactly what Skala said in asking for clarification, and also you when you expressed agreement with his subsequent comment. Please provide this information.

Skala isn't the OP. Please stop derailing my thread.

Thanks.

 

[Tzaousios]

Skala isn't the OP. Please stop derailing my thread.

Thanks.

Okay, then please chastise him for posting what appears to be a rather inflammatory post (for which you strangely expressed agreement), that in turn got the "derail" started. Thanks.

 

[Hammster]

Okay, then please chastise him for posting what appears to be a rather inflammatory post (for which you strangely expressed agreement), that in turn got the "derail" started. Thanks.

M'kay.

 

[Hammster]

Done.

 

[Ignatius21]

Thanks. I'll be interested if any non-Calvinists challenge you. I'm not holding my breath, though.

And for the record, I intentionally didn't mention EO in the thread because of its wide differences. The OP was more targeted to the "Protestant" syngerists, et al. Not to disqualify you from replying, though. But because their differences don't seem to matter much as long as they agree that Calvinism is wrong.

That's cool

But now that it's here, how about interacting? How do you (or others) understand the relationship between the Incarnation, and our salvation? Or the bearing of the synergy between Christ's two natures, on the synergy between ourselves and God?

 

[Hammster]

That's cool

But now that it's here, how about interacting? How do you (or others) understand the relationship between the Incarnation, and our salvation? Or the bearing of the synergy between Christ's two natures, on the synergy between ourselves and God?

I'm not interacting. You know how it'll go. As soon I say anything positive about reformed theology, that's the direction the thread will go. So, I'm content to wait for the inevitable silence of the other non-reformed folks.

 

[Ignatius21]

I'm not interacting. You know how it'll go. As soon I say anything positive about reformed theology, that's the direction the thread will go. So, I'm content to wait for the inevitable silence of the other non-reformed folks.

What does this even mean???

 

[pshun2404]

Just came on board...

And one major difference between this, and what I've heard from any Protestant source, is that the emphasis is not on Christ uniting himself to and saving certain individuals, nor saving all individuals, but rather saving humanity, or mankind. When he assumed human nature, he assumed that which is held in common by all human beings. He became not just "a man" but he became man. He became humanity. He fulfilled and completed, justified, and glorified humanity.

Amen, the last Adam!

Why this distinction? Because he came to overthrow death, and Satan, who wielded death to keep humanity enslaved.

Hebrews 2:14 - Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver ( to snatch away, rescue, save) them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Thanks Ignatius…

Paul

 

[Hammster]

What does this even mean???

Everyone is so conditioned to think that every thread has to be _____ vs. Calvinism. When I've brought up the fact that, regardless of the differing theologies of non-Calvinists, they seem to be able to rally together to oppose Calvinism, I'm made to seem like an alarmist. One member even said I was complaining about being persecuted.

So here's a thread where the differing views can debate each other without interference from the Calvinism issue. And I predict that it just won't happen.

Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

 

[Hammster]

Just came on board...

And one major difference between this, and what I've heard from any Protestant source, is that the emphasis is not on Christ uniting himself to and saving certain individuals, nor saving all individuals, but rather saving humanity, or mankind. When he assumed human nature, he assumed that which is held in common by all human beings. He became not just "a man" but he became man. He became humanity. He fulfilled and completed, justified, and glorified humanity.

Amen, the last Adam!

Why this distinction? Because he came to overthrow death, and Satan, who wielded death to keep humanity enslaved.

Hebrews 2:14 - Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver ( to snatch away, rescue, save) them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Thanks Ignatius…

Paul

So do you fully agree with the EO view of salvation? If not, where do you disagree?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Everyone is so conditioned to think that every thread has to be _____ vs. Calvinism. When I've brought up the fact that, regardless of the differing theologies of non-Calvinists, they seem to be able to rally together to oppose Calvinism, I'm made to seem like an alarmist. One member even said I was complaining about being persecuted.

Given that you are the "mod of the month" and "report guru", I expect honesty. I had ASKED whether you felt persecuted when you perceive Calvinism is being "attacked". There was no complaint. Please report yourself for your violation.

So here's a thread where the differing views can debate each other without interference from the Calvinism issue. And I predict that it just won't happen.

Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

Shouldn't be too hard. Has happened frequently in other threads.

 

[Hammster]

Given that you are the "mod of the month" and "report guru", I expect honesty. I had ASKED whether you felt persecuted when you perceive Calvinism is being "attacked". There was no complaint. Please report yourself for your violation.


Shouldn't be too hard. Has happened frequently in other threads.

Are you planning on addressing the OP?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Are you planning on addressing the OP?

Your post made an untrue comment about me and I addressed that. Since it was brought up, that opened up the possibility of it being addressed. Call it thread drift, not hijacking. Accuracy should always be the goal of all posts. The comment about me wasn't accurate.

 

[Hammster]

Your post made an untrue comment about me and I addressed that. Since it was brought up, that opened up the possibility of it being addressed. Call it thread drift, not hijacking. Accuracy should always be the goal of all posts. The comment about me wasn't accurate.

Please address the OP. This isn't the subject of the thread. I was addressing someone who did actually address the OP.

 

[guuila]

Well, that was enlightening.

 

[Walter2013]

We seem to varying degrees of non-reformed folks on here. I was hoping to get some insight on what these different views are, and why proponents think the others are wrong. The only real commonality I see is that most non-reformed folk think that particular redemption (limited atonement) is wrong. But I also sense some differences on their views of the atonement.

So please, feel free to give your insights.

Thanks.

There are some people on these forums who believe in a synergistic salvation like Arminianism, yet they believe in once saved always saved. That's a position I disagree with since Scripture is clear that we can fall away. Also, Free Grace theology teaches personal holiness and sanctification is optional, which is erroneous.