Why do Arminians...

[OzSpen]

I wasn't speaking to you, Oz. I would very much like to converse with you, if we can without getting sidetracked by other things. As for who I was speaking to, look at the post above my last one, that you replied to.

Thank you, brother, for affirming that we can continue to interact.

However, in a forum, it is wise to backquote because there is no guarantee that the one immediately above will be the one to whom you direct your comments by the time your post reaches the forum.

I have been here for 8.5 years and while I've been composing a response that I thought would apply to the person immediately above, someone else has replied and ruined that plan. Hence my recommendation of backquoting, even when you think it refers to the one immediately above.

In Christ, Oz

 

[stan1953]

Thank you, brother, for affirming that we can continue to interact.

However, in a forum, it is wise to backquote because there is no guarantee that the one immediately above will be the one to whom you direct your comments by the time your post reaches the forum.

I have been here for 8.5 years and while I've been composing a response that I thought would apply to the person immediately above, someone else has replied and ruined that plan. Hence my recommendation of backquoting, even when you think it refers to the one immediately above.

In Christ, Oz

He doesn't do that, quote, deliberately, to avoid the rules on flaming. He thinks if he responds in this fashion of not quoting, he can say anything and not get in trouble. He fooling NOBODY, except maybe himself.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So does it seem to you that Calvin changed his mind? Here Calvin affirms limited atonement as most 5 point Calvinists believe.

John 11

I notice post number 296 that is interesting from folks who have looked at this closely.

My personal feeling is that he was referring to the concept of universal salvation as being heresy - not really unlimited atonement as we are discussing.

I could be wrong. There's no way to ask him now. I might ask him on the other side.

Anyway - a guys is intitled to change his mind from time to time. It seems like a noble trait to me! Would that all of us would at least be willing to do that - at least occasionally.

 

[stan1953]

I notice post number 296 that is interesting from folks who have looked at this closely.

My personal feeling is that he was referring to the concept of universal salvation as being heresy - not really unlimited atonement as we are discussing.

I could be wrong. There's no way to ask him now. I might ask him on the other side.

Anyway - a guys is intitled to change his mind from time to time. It seems like a noble trait to me! Would that all of us would at least be willing to do that - at least occasionally.

Universalism is a common straw man thrown up by RT in their defence of SE. It really has no application or relevance in it's own right, it just sounds relevant.

 

[OzSpen]

He doesn't do that, quote, deliberately, to avoid the rules on flaming. He thinks if he responds in this fashion of not quoting, he can say anything and not get in trouble. He fooling NOBODY, except maybe himself.

But now you know he was referring to your post.

Would you be able to articulate for me how a poster can engage in flaming when he/she is not addressing another person? What would be examples of anonymous flaming?

 

[OzSpen]

Universalism is a common straw man thrown up by RT in their defence of SE. It really has no application or relevance in it's own right, it just sounds relevant.

What is SE?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Universalism is a common straw man thrown up by RT in their defence of SE. It really has no application or relevance in it's own right, it just sounds relevant.

HUH?

 

[Hammster]

Why not say you don't know Hammster? Nobody has provided an answer, but yet some want to continue to say God planned the crucifixion. And, just because you can't answer, no need to bring any straws to the party.

All I'm doing is agreeing with scripture that God planned the crucifixion. For some reason, that's not accepted by you.

 

[stan1953]

What is SE?

Sovereign Election...sorry I assume most here in soteriology would understand these abbreviations. My bad.

 

[stan1953]

HUH?

What?

 

[stan1953]

But now you know he was referring to your post.
Would you be able to articulate for me how a poster can engage in flaming when he/she is not addressing another person? What would be examples of anonymous flaming?

I knew already.

I think you can just read some of his posts to see.

It's not anonymous on the posters part and as they inevitably follow what is not agreed to it's not very anonymous as to who it is addressed to, however technically it is. No forum addresses or warns against independent posts.

 

[nobdysfool]

I knew already.

I think you can just read some of his posts to see.

It's not anonymous on the posters part and as they inevitably follow what is not agreed to it's not very anonymous as to who it is addressed to, however technically it is. No forum addresses or warns against independent posts.

Not entirely true. But i tend to spend my time with people who show respect, and that's something that is sorely lacking in many of these discussions. I don't always agree with Oz, but he makes the attempt, and he and I have actually met in person, years ago, so we have some history together. Many of the discussions in this forum would not be as they are if the posters were talking face to face. That's the downside of online forums, no body language cues that help in understanding. No vocal inflections, nothing but raw words on the screen. Sometimes it insulates people from the consequences of their word choices.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Sovereign Election...sorry I assume most here in soteriology would understand these abbreviations. My bad.

I just settled in to the computer again after figuring out that you probably meant sovereign election.

There's no way to know for sure where Calvin was coming from. But I suppose that he may have been just throwing up the old red herring. Or, then again, there may have been some universal salvation teaching going on that occasioned it.

Even as one who leans toward RT I never could see where seeing the atonement as sufficient for all who would come would lead to universalism. I agree that it is a red herring.

More than it's occasionally being used to support sovereign election (which needs no more support than that which is readily available from direct statements in scripture) - I believe that concept is more often used to support limited atonement which does need some of that kind of support IMO.

The idea for limited atonement Reformed types is the oft repeated statement that, if the atonement is for all, then it would be double jeopardy if anyone had to undergo punishment for their sins - since they were already paid for. Therefore if the atonement was for all - all must be saved or God would be unjust.

My particular take on that is that we all (saved folks) were at one time in the situation where our sins had been fully paid for some 2000 years ago and yet we were for many years in some of our cases unjustified vessels of wrath even as the rest. That is until we were finally justified by faith. Who's to say that that exact condition could not continue for eternity for the reprobate?

After all everything and everyone in creation will in some mysterious way be in Christ at the end of the age so that He may be all in all. At that time He will hand the whole thing over to the Father from whom it ultimately came anyway. Christ is and will remain the wrath covered lamb and the highly exalted lion for eternity. Both the justice and the grace of God will somehow be on display in the ages to come though the experience of the Word of God in this fallen age. He will accomplish everything the Father sent Him out to do. In this age that is to display the "good and evil thing" and it's consequences once for all.

And by the way -the Word of God will be omni present for eternity in Hell as well as in Heaven and on the new earth and everywhere else. Could He not form the atonement (propitiation or "meeting place" for man and God) for both the justified and the reprobate alike? After all it does say that He is the propitiation for us and the whole world.

Something like that anyway!
I don't want to go beyond what is written.

But the point to me is that there are plenty of ways that I (even with my little human pea brain) can see where this can be done. All that has to be demonstrated is that there are other ways to think of these things to make the red herring obvious for exactly what it is - a red herring.

(Strange thoughts for a strange guy I suppose. But then I do have the mind of Christ.)

 

[stan1953]

Not entirely true. But i tend to spend my time with people who show respect, and that's something that is sorely lacking in many of these discussions. I don't always agree with Oz, but he makes the attempt, and he and I have actually met in person, years ago, so we have some history together. Many of the discussions in this forum would not be as they are if the posters were talking face to face. That's the downside of online forums, no body language cues that help in understanding. No vocal inflections, nothing but raw words on the screen. Sometimes it insulates people from the consequences of their word choices.

I agree, and you may not agree with this, but the Holy Spirit knows how to makes us aware. I agree we are all human and suffer from those tendencies, but I have found it best to be cut and dried when it comes to my responses, as it is writing and I can't make a person feel secure or unthreatened if they are looking for the opposite. The fact is that writing can convey feeling for those who learn to do so, as it can convey contempt and dismissiveness. The old saying hold true...practise makes perfect.

 

[nobdysfool]

I agree, and you may not agree with this, but the Holy Spirit knows how to makes us aware. I agree we are all human and suffer from those tendencies, but I have found it best to be cut and dried when it comes to my responses, as it is writing and I can't make a person feel secure or unthreatened if they are looking for the opposite. The fact is that writing can convey feeling for those who learn to do so, as it can convey contempt and dismissiveness. The old saying hold true...practise makes perfect.

Too bad that some feel no twinge of guilt or remorse for treating another believer with contempt and dismissiveness, just because they hold a different theological understanding. Especially when that understanding is the result of serious time in reading the word, praying for understanding, and sincerely wanting to understand the why behind the belief.

In my case, I have never attended a Calvinist or Reformed church, my beliefs are what I see in the Bible. If one had to classify me as anything other than a believer in Christ, which is my preference, it would have to be as a Charismatic Calvinist, with an undecided eschatological view. Undecided only because it has not been my focus of study, due to the demands of day-to-day life, i.e. making a living. I am learning to trust God for my daily provision, and for wisdom and favor in my business (I'm self-employed).

I try to be direct and clear in my spoken and written words, and it surprises me at the equivocation and avoidance of some here. Many times, I make an observation, or a point, and get anything but a straight answer, or indication of understanding, but rather contempt, condescension, and needless and warrantless judgments about my character, my honesty, and in some case questioning whether I am a true believer or not, because of the Calvinist leaning of my theological view. That kind of treatment puts me on edge, and angers me, because it is so needless, and juvenile. Any believer is worthy of respect from his fellow believers unless and/or until they have given reason to not be treated that way, and a differing theological view does not qualify as a reason to do so.

As I indicated, Oz and I know each other personally, and even though I don't always agree with him, I have known him to be an affable, entertaining, and thoroughly genuine man, the very essence of a 'nice guy', and one who I am proud to know on a personal level. We can disagree, sometimes very sharply, but still respect each other. Would to God that more here could be that way with each other.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I agree, and you may not agree with this, but the Holy Spirit knows how to makes us aware. I agree we are all human and suffer from those tendencies, but I have found it best to be cut and dried when it comes to my responses, as it is writing and I can't make a person feel secure or unthreatened if they are looking for the opposite. The fact is that writing can convey feeling for those who learn to do so, as it can convey contempt and dismissiveness. The old saying hold true...practise makes perfect.

I too have found it best to be cut and dried...for many reasons.

1.) to properly convey feeling and emotion requires far more thought, time, and energy to each response. Time constraints should always be considered, and with time contraints the balance between time spent in responses and other time priorities, bible study, prayer, family, work, etc.

2.) because of time constraints, other people (than the person one is responding to) are more likely to pass over a lengthy response than a to the point short response.

3.) it is almost always best in these discussions to refrain from taking anything personal or making it personal. Again time constraints, people seeking drama can watch Maury or Steve Wilkos. Besides it is rather silly to get personal with persons one does not really know personally, not to mention a huge waste of time.

4.) Some time ago, I came to a point where the topic I enjoy the least in discussion is me. By getting to the point, my posts need not be about me at all, rather about the topic, the truth of God, about God and His Word, from the perspective of a Christian worldview!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Too bad that some feel no twinge of guilt or remorse for treating another believer with contempt and dismissiveness, just because they hold a different theological understanding. Especially when that understanding is the result of serious time in reading the word, praying for understanding, and sincerely wanting to understand the why behind the belief.

Like simply pointing out perceived logical fallacies for example? Unfortunately, Oz is a habitual violator of "Don't accuse another member of lying or of being ignorant, illogical or unintelligent." http://www.christianforums.com/t7816824/ A long time ago, I was caught up in the game of looking for and pointing out logical fallacies, however my rational approach became an insulting rationalism, one that in my mind would make me look good and the other person stupid and ignorant (though I had convinced myself this was not the case, were it possible, I had made an idol of the truth, exalting it even above faith, even while knowing the correct view is a balance of both faith and reason). The fallacy approach is really a lazy (if not insulting to the other person) approach to dealing with people's arguments to simply assign logical fallacy labels. May everyone be informed, just because someone puts a label on, that does not make it so (example: non-Trinitarians will insist that we are embracing logical contradiction in embracing the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by ECF Augustine, Athanasius, etc.). It is too bad the wanna be logic machines cannot seem to feel remorse.

In my case, I have never attended a Calvinist or Reformed church, my beliefs are what I see in the Bible. If one had to classify me as anything other than a believer in Christ, which is my preference, it would have to be as a Charismatic Calvinist, with an undecided eschatological view. Undecided only because it has not been my focus of study, due to the demands of day-to-day life, i.e. making a living. I am learning to trust God for my daily provision, and for wisdom and favor in my business (I'm self-employed).

I've attended Calvinist and Reformed Churches, but not very many, and not very often, not with regularity. Unfortunately, the only Calvinist/Reformed Church I know of anywhere near where I live, belongs to a liberal denomination, so I must eat much humble pie. I used to be a Charismatic Calvinist, and had been a continualist up until this the past year, around the time of the MacArthur "Strange Fire" Conference which stirred me to re-evaluating my position. I too am undecided for the most part (not a dispensationalist though) on an eschatological view, for the same reasons.

I try to be direct and clear in my spoken and written words, and it surprises me at the equivocation and avoidance of some here. Many times, I make an observation, or a point, and get anything but a straight answer, or indication of understanding, but rather contempt, condescension, and needless and warrantless judgments about my character, my honesty, and in some case questioning whether I am a true believer or not, because of the Calvinist leaning of my theological view. That kind of treatment puts me on edge, and angers me, because it is so needless, and juvenile. Any believer is worthy of respect from his fellow believers unless and/or until they have given reason to not be treated that way, and a differing theological view does not qualify as a reason to do so.

The treatment doesn't surprise me brother. We should worry if our theology does not stir up anger and persecution in one form or another. Be of good cheer though, Christ has overcome the world. Greater is He that is in us than He that is in the world. The worldly professors will not, indeed have it not in them to be respectful for anyone opposed to their preconceived notions. For them to hold back, would be a sign of maturity and growth in the grace of God. But places like this, do you really know who you're dealing with? Let God be true...

 

[OzSpen]

I agree, and you may not agree with this, but the Holy Spirit knows how to makes us aware. I agree we are all human and suffer from those tendencies, but I have found it best to be cut and dried when it comes to my responses, as it is writing and I can't make a person feel secure or unthreatened if they are looking for the opposite. The fact is that writing can convey feeling for those who learn to do so, as it can convey contempt and dismissiveness. The old saying hold true...practise makes perfect.

Stan,

Being cut and dried can come across to those reading the post as cold and uncaring. That's why I prefer those who engage in some back and forth 'banter' so that we can illustrate what we are talking about and engage with each other.

I had an example of this in the sermon I preached last night (that should be on the church's website by Tuesday this week). I was explaining being a 'double-minded man' (James 1:8) as being like Mr Facing-both-ways in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim’s Progress.

I used this first graphic that didn't require any further explanation as it cut and dried:

Sirona says​

Since we had our federal budget delivered by a new government on 13 May 2014, I used this graphic to illustrate Mr Facing-both-ways:

Tale of two deficits (ABC News, 14 May 2014)

​

This is a picture of our Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and the graphic was cut and dried - so I thought. But a person who was in the congregation thought it was my complaint against the Prime Minister, and he told me so after the service. I thought it was cut and dried, but it wasn't for this listener who is an avid support of the Prime Minister's political party, the Coalition.

I should have made a qualifier when I used the Tony Abbott graphic as it was not meant to be an indication of my political persuasion. Also, it remained too long on the screen. I should have made a proviso like this, by way of introduction:

OR, is it like this? This graphic is not a statement about which political party I support. It’s the ABC News depicting the Federal Budget delivered on Tuesday, 13 May 2014. I use it because it is a contemporary example of Mr Facing-both-ways, according to ABC News. It is what James would label as a double-minded person. It’s a graphic and not a political statement.
​

Cut and dried statements too often are from the perspective of the presenter or writer. They often require further explanation as I found out last night.

What seems cut and dried to me may sound abrupt and offensive to the listener or reader. These are only some thoughts for consideration.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Like simply pointing out perceived logical fallacies for example? Unfortunately, Oz is a habitual violator of "Don't accuse another member of lying or of being ignorant, illogical or unintelligent." http://www.christianforums.com/t7816824/

AW,

You have quoted from an 'Inactive' Emergency Protocol with your comments against me here. It states:

Soteriology Emergency Protocol [Inactive] 1. When debating another member do not attack that member's character in any way, address only the content of a post and not the member personally.
Don't accuse another member of lying or of being ignorant, illogical or unintelligent.
​

When I raise the issue of logical fallacies, I am not accusing a member of being illogical. I'm dealing with a technique used in writing.

A more important issue is why you talk about me to another person and not talk with me directly. If I have sinned against you and others by raising the issue of logical fallacies, you have a biblical obligation to come directly to me:

New International Version
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over (Matt 18:15).
​

Why have you not done this to me?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Like simply pointing out perceived logical fallacies for example? Unfortunately, Oz is a habitual violator of "Don't accuse another member of lying or of being ignorant, illogical or unintelligent." http://www.christianforums.com/t7816824/

These are the rules concerning logical fallacies that apply in Soteriology Debate:

The Soteriology Debate Statement of Purpose states:

Specific Debate Forum Guidelines

• Only the member to whom the post is addressed may report the post for violations of flaming, goading, or harassment.
• A member may report a post for flaming, goading, or harassment if the post refers to them, but is not specifically addressed to them.
• If you report a post that is not clearly a violation, you may be asked to start a thread in the Member Services Center for mentoring on how to recognize violations.
• CF staff members who participate in this forum will not moderate this forum or work reported posts from this forum.
• CF staff who are not participating in this forum have the right to report any blatant violations of CF sitewide rules.
• CF staff reserves the right to edit, remove, move or close any thread when deemed necessary.
• If you accuse the content of another member's post to be a fallacy in reasoning (i.e. red herring, straw man), be prepared to defend your accusation.

​

Therefore, exposing a person's logical fallacies is legitimate in topics in these debate sections with the proviso that the poster is 'prepared to defend your accusation of a logical fallacy'.

The last edited version of this, posted by Edial, was on 28 April 2014.

Oz