Arminianism and secular humanism

[Carico]

When the first Christians came to America, most of them believed in the absolute soverignty of God, his election and predestination. But as our country progressed and human rights became the focal point of the US Constitution, then what we now call secular humanism has also invaded the church. Therefore, most Christians now have adopted these secular beliefs and disregarded what the bible has to say about who rules the universe.

Arminianism (the belief in free will) is actually a form of secular humanism because:

1) It believes in the power of the human mind, like secular humanism does, not in the soverignty of God, like true Christians do
2) It accepts that human interpretation is correct, not God's word alone
3) It makes salvation dependant on man's works, not on Christ's death and God's election
4) It glorifies the human mind, not God alone
5) It doesn't acknowledge that faith is from God, but instead claims that faith is from man

Calvinism on the other hand:

1) Claims the soveriegnty of God
2) It acknowledges our powerlessness over sin which is why we need a redeemer
3) It credits God with our salvation and faith, not the human being, thus agreeing with Ephesians 2:8-9
4) It gives God the credit for our creation, choices, and everything good in us instead of to man

Arminianism therefore comes from human wisdom, not spiritual wisdom. Wisdom from the Spirit acknowledges the power of the Spirit and gives credit to the Spirit for all things. Wisdom from the human mind, on the other hand, doesn't acknowledge the power of the Holy Spirit (unless out of political correctness in the Christian world), but credits the human mind with its choices as the secular world does also.

Calvinism comes from the humility that comes from the Spirit. Arminianism comes from the pride that comes from the sinful nature.

The bible talks about God's power, not the power of the human mind. Jesus said; "I can do nothing without my Father." So he acknowledges that his power came from God, not himself. H even went so far as to say; "I can do nothing without my Father." So who are any of us to claim that our human will is more powerful than God's?

So no. Man's choice is hardly free. As Paul tells us in Romans 7:25, "So then I myself in my mind am a slave to God's laws and in the sinful nature, a slave to the law of sin." He couldn't have said it better.

Therefore, Arminiainism is a heretical teaching because it's not biblical. It is secular humanism that honors God with their lips while denying God's power.

[Philosophickle]

Yet another ignorant punk showcasing anything but humility.

[John Reece]

So, John Wesley (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/walk.stm) was a secular humanist who did not acknowledge that faith is from God?

[Carico]

Yet another ignorant punk showcasing anything but humility.

Personal attacks prove nothing except one's inability to defend his statements. So I will ignore posts such as this one.

[Carico]

So, John Wesley (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/walk.stm) was a secular humanist who did not acknowledge that faith is from God?


No, he didn't acknowledge that his faith was from God. Toward the end of his life, he credited all his wisdom and belief to his mother. So he is a perfect example of why my OP is true. :wink:

[Xavier]

Ignore all you want, but that OP shows a remarkable ignorance of both history and theology. I'd suggest more study before you try this argument.

[Philosophickle]

Personal attacks prove nothing except one's inability to defend his statements. So I will ignore posts such as this one.

Fine, let's look at what you said.

When the first Christians came to America, most of them believed in the absolute soverignty of God, his election and predestination. But as our country progressed and human rights became the focal point of the US Constitution, then what we now call secular humanism has also invaded the church. Therefore, most Christians now have adopted these secular beliefs and disregarded what the bible has to say about who rules the universe.

What does this mean? That Calvinists do not believe in human rights? You even call it progression, so I am happy to be in that camp.

1) It believes in the power of the human mind, like secular humanism does, not in the soverignty of God, like true Christians do

God sovereignly created the mind of man to function as it does. The abilities and limitations of man's mind and volition are gifts from God, not something that congealed in the gutter of sin.

2) It accepts that human interpretation is correct, not God's word alone

What?

3) It makes salvation dependant on man's works, not on Christ's death and God's election

I don't know any Arminian that would say salvation is based on man's work. I would happily burn that strawman with you.

4) It glorifies the human mind, not God alone

It glorifies the moral, loving nature of God, not the human mind.

5) It doesn't acknowledge that faith is from God, but instead claims that faith is from man

Whatever.

[Carico]

Ignore all you want, but that OP shows a remarkable ignorance of both history and theology. I'd suggest more study before you try this argument.

So prove me wrong with scripture that doesn't contradict other scripture. Otehrwise, you haven't got a leg to stand on. :wink:

[Carico]

Fine, let's look at what you said.



What does this mean? That Calvinists do not believe in human rights? You even call it progression, so I am happy to be in that camp.



God sovereignly created the mind of man to function as it does. The abilities and limitations of man's mind and volition are gifts from God, not something that congealed in the gutter of sin.



What?



I don't know any Arminian that would say salvation is based on man's work. I would happily burn that strawman with you.



It glorifies the moral, loving nature of God, not the human mind.



Whatever.

Do you know who the Holy Spirt is? or not? Do you know who ransforms hearts and minds? or not? Do you know who saves? Or not? When you sin, where do you turn? Your human will or the cross? Or don't you have a clue?

Do you know why they're called fruits of the Spirit not fruits from the human being? Do you know who has the fruits of the spirit and who are servants of satan? Do you know why our gifts are called spiritual gifts? or not?

So i suggest you read the bible to see who hardens hearts and who changes hearts. Then read the whole book of Romans , particularly 7:13-25. Then Read Romans 9:11-25, particularly 21-24.
Once you answer those questions according to scripture, I have a lot more to show you. :wink:

But you have proven my OP that Arminians think like secular humanists who believe in the power of the human mind over the pwoer of the Holy Spirit.

[Xavier]

So prove me wrong with scripture that doesn't contradict other scripture. Otehrwise, you haven't got a leg to stand on. :wink:

For one, I don't play games with people any more. For two, you haven't shown yourself to be knowledgeable enough to actually engage in debate. For three, you didn't make an cogent form of argument.

[Carico]

For one, I don't play games with people any more. For two, you haven't shown yourself to be knowledgeable enough to actually engage in debate. For three, you didn't make an cogent form of argument.

Sorry, but since you haven't provided any scripture to back up your claims, then the only one who's playing games is you. It's called verbal volleyball. So I'll stick to the scripture I provided for the truth. You can continue your game without me. :wink:

[Xavier]

Sorry, but since you haven't provided any scripture to back up your claims, then the only one who's playing games is you. It's called verbal volleyball. So I'll stick to the scripture I provided for the truth. You can continue your game without me. :wink:

You're new to this, aren't you?

[Longstreet]

When the first Christians came to America, most of them believed in the absolute soverignty of God, his election and predestination. But as our country progressed and human rights became the focal point of the US Constitution, then what we now call secular humanism has also invaded the church. Therefore, most Christians now have adopted these secular beliefs and disregarded what the bible has to say about who rules the universe.

Arminianism (the belief in free will) is actually a form of secular humanism because....
yak, yak, yak
.......Therefore, Arminiainism is a heretical teaching because it's not biblical. It is secular humanism that honors God with their lips while denying God's power.

What garbage! I came to Theology Web to get away from this kind of ignorant, bigoted, poorly-reasoned garbage. If you think this is a personal attack, then so be it. At least I didn't accuse you of heresy.

Maybe I should, now that I think about it. I think I'll start a thread entitled "Calvinism and naturalistic atheism". I lay out several erroneous and (deliberately?) distorted statements re Calvinist thought. Then I'll explain how my arguments show that, since they both destroy free will and turn man into an automaton with no responsibility for his actions, Calvinism is atheism in disguise. For extra credit, maybe I'll throw something in about how the made-up-to-fit-atheism Calvinist god is so evil because he creates men for the express purpose of tormenting them forever for actions they couldn't help but do.

Ooh, ooh! I know what! I could even hit you with the eternal sin! Calvinism is atheism in disguise, atheism denies God, everyone knows the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity so to deny God is to deny the HS, and you know what Matt12:30-32 and Mark 3:28-29 have to say aobut that!!!!

Of course all that would be ignorant, simple-minded and wrong, but no worse than your OP.

Nevertheless, I want to give your carefully thought out arguments the attention they deserve....

1) It believes in the power of the human mind, like secular humanism does, not in the soverignty of God, like true Christians do
No it doesn't. And besides, Calvinists aren't true Christians. They atheists. And I can prove it.
2) It accepts that human interpretation is correct, not God's word alone
No it doesn't.
3) It makes salvation dependant on man's works, not on Christ's death and God's election
No it doesn't.
4) It glorifies the human mind, not God alone
No it doesn't. And besides, Cavinists are the ones worshipping the horrible atheist in disguise and his TULIPs!!!
5) It doesn't acknowledge that faith is from God, but instead claims that faith is from man
Yes it does.

[Carico]

What garbage! I came to Theology Web to get away from this kind of ignorant, bigoted, poorly-reasoned garbage. If you think this is a personal attack, then so be it. At least I didn't accuse you of heresy.

Maybe I should, now that I think about it. I think I'll start a thread entitled "Calvinism and naturalistic atheism". I lay out several erroneous and (deliberately?) distorted statements re Calvinist thought. Then I'll explain how my arguments show that, since they both destroy free will and turn man into an automaton with no responsibility for his actions, Calvinism is atheism in disguise. For extra credit, maybe I'll throw something in about how the made-up-to-fit-atheism Calvinist god is so evil because he creates men for the express purpose of tormenting them forever for actions they couldn't help but do.

Ooh, ooh! I know what! I could even hit you with the eternal sin! Calvinism is atheism in disguise, atheism denies God, everyone knows the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity so to deny God is to deny the HS, and you know what Matt12:30-32 and Mark 3:28-29 have to say aobut that!!!!

Of course all that would be ignorant, simple-minded and wrong, but no worse than your OP.

Nevertheless, I want to give your carefully thought out arguments the attention they deserve....


No it doesn't. And besides, Calvinists aren't true Christians. They atheists. And I can prove it.

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't. And besides, Cavinists are the ones worshipping the horrible atheist in disguise and his TULIPs!!!

Yes it does.

Since you haven't explained your arguments in this thread, then of course I have a lot to look forward to in your future thread about Calvinism. :wink: And "yes it does" no more proves your claims than saying; "I'm right and you're wrong" does. :lol:

So you'll have to do alot better than that to prove that man is more powerful than the Holy Spirit. :wink:

[Timothy Leary]

Carico, you are - without a doubt - crazier than Alex Jones.
Take you tin foil hat off, and get a life.

[Philosophickle]

Do you know who the Holy Spirt is? or not? Do you know who ransforms hearts and minds? or not? Do you know who saves? Or not? When you sin, where do you turn? Your human will or the cross? Or don't you have a clue?

These questions are borderline incoherent. I think the answers to all them can be safely summed up with:

Christ died for our sins and rose again. Because of God's loving nature, he provides grace to all that allows man to accept Christ's gift of salvation. You thinking that man is responsible for salvation because they accept something is ludicrous. That reminds me, thank Bill Gates' charity for accepting Warren Buffet's donation.

Do you know why they're called fruits of the Spirit not fruits from the human being? Do you know who has the fruits of the spirit and who are servants of satan? Do you know why our gifts are called spiritual gifts? or not?

Yes.

So i suggest you read the bible to see who hardens hearts and who changes hearts. Then read the whole book of Romans , particularly 7:13-25. Then Read Romans 9:11-25, particularly 21-24.

Rather than tell me what to read, perhaps you should tell me what you think those verses say?

Once you answer those questions according to scripture, I have a lot more to show you. :wink:

Thank you Master.

But you have proven my OP that Arminians think like secular humanists who believe in the power of the human mind over the pwoer of the Holy Spirit.

What does that mean? How do secular humanists think and why would they tell you that it is not man's mind of will that is the cornerstone of Arminianism but rather God's love (when presumably they don't believe in God)

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

When the first Christians came to America, most of them believed in the absolute soverignty of God, his election and predestination. But as our country progressed and human rights became the focal point of the US Constitution, then what we now call secular humanism has also invaded the church. Therefore, most Christians now have adopted these secular beliefs and disregarded what the bible has to say about who rules the universe.

Arminianism (the belief in free will) is actually a form of secular humanism because:

1) It believes in the power of the human mind, like secular humanism does, not in the soverignty of God, like true Christians do
2) It accepts that human interpretation is correct, not God's word alone
3) It makes salvation dependant on man's works, not on Christ's death and God's election
4) It glorifies the human mind, not God alone
5) It doesn't acknowledge that faith is from God, but instead claims that faith is from man

Calvinism on the other hand:

1) Claims the soveriegnty of God
2) It acknowledges our powerlessness over sin which is why we need a redeemer
3) It credits God with our salvation and faith, not the human being, thus agreeing with Ephesians 2:8-9
4) It gives God the credit for our creation, choices, and everything good in us instead of to man

Arminianism therefore comes from human wisdom, not spiritual wisdom. Wisdom from the Spirit acknowledges the power of the Spirit and gives credit to the Spirit for all things. Wisdom from the human mind, on the other hand, doesn't acknowledge the power of the Holy Spirit (unless out of political correctness in the Christian world), but credits the human mind with its choices as the secular world does also.

Calvinism comes from the humility that comes from the Spirit. Arminianism comes from the pride that comes from the sinful nature.

The bible talks about God's power, not the power of the human mind. Jesus said; "I can do nothing without my Father." So he acknowledges that his power came from God, not himself. H even went so far as to say; "I can do nothing without my Father." So who are any of us to claim that our human will is more powerful than God's?

So no. Man's choice is hardly free. As Paul tells us in Romans 7:25, "So then I myself in my mind am a slave to God's laws and in the sinful nature, a slave to the law of sin." He couldn't have said it better.

Therefore, Arminiainism is a heretical teaching because it's not biblical. It is secular humanism that honors God with their lips while denying God's power.


Wow. I'm totally convinced. It's back to Dordt for me. I'm going home tonight and I'm going to make a little paper doll of Arminius. Then I'll burn it in the back yard while toasting marshmallows. Maybe I'll even make some s'mores....:sigh:

[Philosophickle]

Wow. I'm totally convinced. It's back to Dordt for me. I'm going home tonight and I'm going to make a little paper doll of Arminius. Then I'll burn it in the back yard while toasting marshmallows. Maybe I'll even make some s'mores....:sigh:

I don't suppose I could talk you into a more humane way of executing the paper doll, could I?

:tongue:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I don't suppose I could talk you into a more humane way of executing the paper doll, could I?

:tongue:

Nah---I'm gonna get "Servetus" on his you-know-what....

[Philosophickle]

Nah---I'm gonna get "Servetus" on his you-know-what....

As long as it goes down in the history books that this wasn't my idea. I mean, I want the paper doll to die- I spent all my lunchbreak trying to get that little paper airplane to recant- but I want it to be shredded rather than burned. I'm graceful like that.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

As long as it goes down in the history books that this wasn't my idea. I mean, I want the paper doll to die- I spent all my lunchbreak trying to get that little paper airplane to recant- but I want it to be shredded rather than burned. I'm graceful like that.


I wish I were so compassionate. If he were flesh and blood, I'd consider cooking his liver up in a pie. But, as it is, I'll just have to content myself with s'mores....

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

You know----once I got out there, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. It was those crazy human rights, nagging me in the back of my mind. I put the little paper doll to bed, tucked him in, and ate cold marshmallows prepared over the burnt-out coals of my former zeal....

[Philosophickle]

You must've never been baptized as a child, infidel.

[A-Man]

I'll wager this person is related to Nang, Michael T, or Zipperhead.
Who will take my bet?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

You must've never been baptized as a child, infidel.

You found me out; I was dunked in a creek by a preacher on a hayride....

[Raphael]

When the first Christians came to America, most of them believed in the absolute soverignty of God, his election and predestination. But as our country progressed and human rights became the focal point of the US Constitution, then what we now call secular humanism has also invaded the church. Therefore, most Christians now have adopted these secular beliefs and disregarded what the bible has to say about who rules the universe. Why do Americans have to bring their constitution into everything :wink:

Arminianism (the belief in free will) is actually a form of secular humanism because:Actually many of Calvinists argue that only the elect have true free will because as people washed clean from sin and made alive they are capable of choosing life or death, whereas the unsaved are dead and have no choice.
1) It believes in the power of the human mind, like secular humanism does, not in the soverignty of God, like true Christians do Ahhhh no. most Arminians would say that God gave them the ability to choose of their own free will. The fact that the ability comes from God would keep God being soveriegn.
2) It accepts that human interpretation is correct, not God's word aloneAhhhh, no. I have yet to come across an Arminian who did not beleive that God's Word alone is correct.
The fact that they have a different understanding of how certain verses are to be understood is not to be confused with placing human understanding of God's Authority.
3) It makes salvation dependant on man's works, not on Christ's death and God's electionOnly in the sense that they beleive that they can choose God of their own free will.

As for them not quite agreeing with Perseverance of the Saints, I would argue that someone claiming to be a Christian, but not exhibiting the fruit, would need to have their salvation quiestioned. So it boils down to a fairly similar arguement:
Arminian keep working at it everyday to make sure you are saved.
Calvinist keep working at it everyday to know you are saved.
I've phrased that badly. But basically Faith without works is dead and worthless....reagardless ofo whether you are Calvinist or Arminian.

4) It glorifies the human mind, not God aloneI disagree
5) It doesn't acknowledge that faith is from God, but instead claims that faith is from manNo! I have never come across an Arminian who would say that. The fact that they beleive that they chose to follow Christ of their own free will does not translate into them believing that they are the authors of their own faith.

Calvinism on the other hand:
1) Claims the soveriegnty of God As does Arminianism
2) It acknowledges our powerlessness over sin which is why we need a redeemer As does Arminianism
3) It credits God with our salvation and faith, not the human being, thus agreeing with Ephesians 2:8-9 As does Arminianism
4) It gives God the credit for our creation, choices, and everything good in us instead of to man Most Arminians I know give credit to God for those things.

Arminianism therefore comes from human wisdom, not spiritual wisdom. Wisdom from the Spirit acknowledges the power of the Spirit and gives credit to the Spirit for all things. Wisdom from the human mind, on the other hand, doesn't acknowledge the power of the Holy Spirit (unless out of political correctness in the Christian world), but credits the human mind with its choices as the secular world does also. Only with the strawman arminianism you setup.

Calvinism comes from the humility that comes from the Spirit. Arminianism comes from the pride that comes from the sinful nature.That's a real "I'm better than you are" arguement.
I know some very arrogant and prideful Calvinists, and some very humble Arminians.

The bible talks about God's power, not the power of the human mind. Jesus said; "I can do nothing without my Father." So he acknowledges that his power came from God, not himself. H even went so far as to say; "I can do nothing without my Father." So who are any of us to claim that our human will is more powerful than God's?

So no. Man's choice is hardly free. As Paul tells us in Romans 7:25, "So then I myself in my mind am a slave to God's laws and in the sinful nature, a slave to the law of sin." He couldn't have said it better. I would argue that fallen man's choice is hardly free afterall dead men can't choose anything.
Besides Free Choice is a Calvinist doctrine used to demonstrate the responsibility of man.

Therefore, Arminiainism is a heretical teaching because it's not biblical. It is secular humanism that honors God with their lips while denying God's power.Be very very cautious before labelling something a Heresy, especially when Your definition does not line up with the standard view point.
As for it not being biblical, I got into a debate with my own brother about this (I am a 5 point Calvinist, he is an Arminian), and everyone of his beliefs he backed up with scripture.

No, he didn't acknowledge that his faith was from God. Toward the end of his life, he credited all his wisdom and belief to his mother. So he is a perfect example of why my OP is true. What is your source for that.
Also I don't know if you've ever read Charles Spurgeon's A Defence of Calvinism (http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm). In there Spurgeon has this to say about Wesley:
Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.

[Timothy Leary]

Guys, let's not speak ill of those who aren't around anymore (please)

[Xavier]

Guys, let's not speak ill of those who aren't around anymore (please)

Fair enough... I'll strike my comments.

My apologies to those not present.

[A-Man]

Thank you Raphael for posting. I appreciate when calvinists attempt to police their own. She really needed it, too.

[Raphael]

Thank you Raphael for posting. I appreciate when calvinists attempt to police their own. She really needed it, too.:blush: Least I could do....

[Arminian]

This thread is over and done with. I had to post this qoute from McKnight's blog somewhere because it's so funny.

Ok, this one is just a quirk, but it bothered me nonetheless: on the very first page of this CT issue there is an ad for a published edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible. I just got done reading a good, interesting book by Alister McGrath about the King James Bible in which he talks at length about its predecessors, including the Geneva Bible. I thought to myself: “that would be interesting to browse through, from a historical perspective…”

Then I read the quote from D. James Kennedy, a pastor and seminary leader in Florida: “The publication and promulgation of the 1599 Geneva Bible will help restore America’s rich Christian heritage and reclaim the culture for Christ.” What!? A 1599 Bible which, incidentally, comes with a middle-English glossary to help you understand what the heck they were saying, is the answer that will reclaim the culture for Christ??? The implications of that statement are just staggering. Apparently the NIV and The Message are on the wrong path in trying to translate the Bible into everyday language. We need to go back to a way of speaking that is over 400 years old so that we can give it to our youth and the un-churched among us. Then, they can read what the Puritans read and in no time our culture will be reclaimed for Christ. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[Carico]

Wow. I'm totally convinced. It's back to Dordt for me. I'm going home tonight and I'm going to make a little paper doll of Arminius. Then I'll burn it in the back yard while toasting marshmallows. Maybe I'll even make some s'mores....:sigh:

Of course you can't be convinced. As I said, Arminianism comes from human wisdom, not spiritual wisdom. If Arminians had been born again of the Holy Spirit in the first place, then they wouldn't adopt Arminianism. So I don't expect them to understand God's election unless they knew they were chosen themselves. :smile:

[Carico]

This thread is over and done with. I had to post this qoute from McKnight's blog somewhere because it's so funny.

Since I haven't seen any scripture that disagrees with my OP, then yes, this thread is over because there is no scripture to refute my OP. I'm sure that that is what has made the Arminians here so angry. But I know you can't help yourselves so I forgive you. :smile:

[A-Man]

Since I haven't seen any scripture that disagrees with my OP, then yes, this thread is over because there is no scripture to refute my OP. I'm sure that that is what has made the Arminians here so angry. But I know you can't help yourselves so I forgive you. :smile:

The entire NT disagrees with your OP. You should take time to read it.

:troll:

[Philosophickle]

Since I haven't seen any scripture that disagrees with my OP, then yes, this thread is over because there is no scripture to refute my OP. I'm sure that that is what has made the Arminians here so angry. But I know you can't help yourselves so I forgive you. :smile:

You have two different references, neither of which refutes Arminianism without an explanation on your behalf. Perhaps if you told us why you thought those verses contradicted Arminianism could we get this thread going.

[Carico]

The entire NT disagrees with your OP. You should take time to read it.

:troll:

It would be nice if you could quote the bible to back up your cliams instead of quoting a human being. But all that does is prove my OP true about Arminians. :smile: So your claim that the entire NT disagrees with Calvinism is a blatant falsehood as I have shown by the scripture I have quoted.

Arminians don't believe:

1) Romans 9:11-25
2) Romans 7:13-15
3) 1 Corinthians 1:27
4) John 15:16
5) Philippians 2:15
6) 1 John 4:4
7) 2 Corinthians 4:4
8) John 6:44

And many more verses. And if a theology disagrees with even one verse, then it is incorrect. So I have shown the verses that Arminians contradict. And all the Arminians here have quoted is the words of fallible human beings which then makes their theology, fallible. So the only ones here who have shown ignorance of the bible are Arminians. Sorry. :smile:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Of course you can't be convinced. As I said, Arminianism comes from human wisdom, not spiritual wisdom.

The operative word here is "I"....


If Arminians had been born again of the Holy Spirit in the first place, then they wouldn't adopt Arminianism.

Another human opinion....


So I don't expect them to understand God's election unless they knew they were chosen themselves. :smile:

And a follow up with another "I," coupled with an all too human expectation. You are so wrapped up in your human expectations and conclusions that you mistake them for the Word.

"Do not be high minded---but fear...."

[Carico]

The operative word here is "I"....



Another human opinion....



And a follow up with another "I," coupled with an all too human expectation. You are so wrapped up in your human expectations and conclusions that you mistake them for the Word.

"Do not be high minded---but fear...."

Acutally, the posts by Arminians in this thread proves my OP true better than any words I could ever say. They don't quote scripture, but instead, quote human beings. They personally attack posters who disagree with them instead of providing scripture for their claims. That's how atheists and secular humanists argue. Anger comes from Satan, not the Holy Spirit. So since virtually all the posts by Arminians have come from anger, then that proves they are not controlled by the Spirit.

So I don't need to say anything. Armininans themselves prove my OP true. But like all false teachers, they don't think their theology is false. But as Jesus says; "By their fruits you wil recognize them." And that I do. :wink:

[Darth Executor]

1) It believes in the power of the human mind, like secular humanism does, not in the soverignty of God, like true Christians do

Man, the Calvinist god is pretty weak. My God is sovereign AND can give humans free will at the same time.

2) It accepts that human interpretation is correct, not God's word alone

What does this mean? All humans interpret what they sense. That's how we learn stuff.


3) It makes salvation dependant on man's works, not on Christ's death and God's election

Can you explain this for me please?
Revelation 20:12-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12-15;&version=9;)

4) It glorifies the human mind, not God alone

I searched the KJV and didn't find any ban on glorifying anything.

5) It doesn't acknowledge that faith is from God, but instead claims that faith is from man


Actually, like #1, this is just what certain brain dead Calvinists think Arminians think.

[Longstreet]

I'm sorry. Did I leave you with the impression that I thought this was a serious discussion?

Since you haven't explained your arguments in this thread, then of course I have a lot to look forward to in your future thread about Calvinism.
I already did! Calvinism destroys free-will, atheism destroys free-will, ergo Calvinism=atheism. That's as well-reasoned as your OP.

And "yes it does" no more proves your claims than saying; "I'm right and you're wrong" does.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

So you'll have to do alot better than that to prove that man is more powerful than the Holy Spirit.
Who said I believe that? So why would I try to prove it? To you?

Come back with a serious, respectful, well-reasoned post, no strawmen allowed. No telling people what they believe when they know otherwise. Then we have a serious discussion. Until then your OP and subsequent arguments are a bad joke.

Actually, like #1, this is just what certain brain dead Calvinists think Arminians think.
DING DING DING DING!!! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winnnah!

[Carico]

I'm sorry. Did I leave you with the impression that I thought this was a serious discussion?


I already did! Calvinism destroys free-will, atheism destroys free-will, ergo Calvinism=atheism. That's as well-reasoned as your OP.


Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Who said I believe that? So why would I try to prove it? To you?

Come back with a serious, respectful, well-reasoned post, no strawmen allowed. No telling people what they believe when they know otherwise. Then we have a serious discussion. Until then your OP and subsequent arguments are a bad joke.


DING DING DING DING!!! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winnnah!


No, I already know that Arminians don't take the bible seriously. :wink:

So why the anger at Calvinists? Another contradiction. It really bothers you that humans don't have free will, doesn't it? Sorry, but only God is responsible for our very lives and everything we do. But Arminians, atheists, and secular humanists want to give credit to themselves for their deeds instead of to God alone. And that's why they aren't true Christians.

Proverbs 16:9, "In his heart, a man plans his course. But the Lord determines his steps." That really frightens Arminians to know that their lives are in God's hands. That only frighten unbelievers because of God's judgment. But it never frightens true believers because we know we're safe in God's hands instead of our own. :smile:

[semmie]

I'm sorry. Did I leave you with the impression that I thought this was a serious discussion?
:rofl:

this thread is over because there is no scripture to refute my OP. I'm sure that that is what has made the Arminians here so angry.
you're joking, right?

And if a theology disagrees with even one verse, then it is incorrect.
then you are incorrect, on account of i'm going to claim that Random Verse X disagrees with your theology. that's the problem here, Carico. you're making some claims...and that's okay, you're allowed to. but unless you're willing to get nitty and gritty and defend yourself a little bit, you're still just going to be making claims. just because *you* say that Verses A, B, and C disagree with Arminianism, doesn't mean they *do*. it just means you *think* they do. obviously if it were clearly cut and dried, there would be no disagreement about what scripture teaches. so i suggest that if you're wanting to honestly discuss this topic...well, there are more than a handful of people here who've offered. but you've gotta put more into it than simple assertion.

you don't win the right to be correct just because none of the Arminian fish are going to bite your rotten worms. toss some bait, kiddo.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Acutally, the posts by Arminians in this thread proves my OP true better than any words I could ever say. They don't quote scripture, but instead, quote human beings. They personally attack posters who disagree with them instead of providing scripture for their claims. That's how atheists and secular humanists argue. Anger comes from Satan, not the Holy Spirit. So since virtually all the posts by Arminians have come from anger, then that proves they are not controlled by the Spirit.

So I don't need to say anything. Armininans themselves prove my OP true. But like all false teachers, they don't think their theology is false. But as Jesus says; "By their fruits you wil recognize them." And that I do. :wink:


Actually the posts in response to your OP were nearly all jokes---because that's what your OP was---a joke. Although you delivered the joke, you didn't get your own punchline. And jokes really aren't something that one "proves." When you get people laughing and rolling in the floor, that doesn't prove anything. I think what you suppose is anger is mostly laughter:lol: .

But your own heart seems less that pristine. You seem to enjoy condemnation very much---unless that's just humor on your part as well. I don't think anybody's day will be ruined or that anybody is boiling over anything you've said. You take yourself too seriously---and then again, not seriously enough.

But regardless of whether or not someone is angry, the truth or falsity of a theological position cannot be ascertained by their emotional state. An angry person can be right, while a serene person can be mistaken. I can think of plenty of folks in the Bible who got angry on occasion---the Lord himself included.

As to your fruits, I haven't seen anything here that would mark you out as particularly holy---"holier than thou," maybe. :wink: But I want you to be holy and happy, and I'd also like you to make better arguments.

All the best!

[Carico]

:rofl:


you're joking, right?


then you are incorrect, on account of i'm going to claim that Random Verse X disagrees with your theology. that's the problem here, Carico. you're making some claims...and that's okay, you're allowed to. but unless you're willing to get nitty and gritty and defend yourself a little bit, you're still just going to be making claims. just because *you* say that Verses A, B, and C disagree with Arminianism, doesn't mean they *do*. it just means you *think* they do. obviously if it were clearly cut and dried, there would be no disagreement about what scripture teaches. so i suggest that if you're wanting to honestly discuss this topic...well, there are more than a handful of people here who've offered. but you've gotta put more into it than simple assertion.

you don't win the right to be correct just because none of the Arminian fish are going to bite your rotten worms. toss some bait, kiddo.

Do you know the difference between the words in the bible and people's interpretations of them? :clueless: If not, then that's your first step. :ahem:

So to whom do you turn when you sin? Your own free will? Or the cross? First answer that and then we'll see whether or not Arminianism has anything whatsoever to do with Christianity. :wink:

[Longstreet]

^
^
^
Still thinks we're taking this seriously.

To carico, not LPoSD.

Oh, and I forgot my ANGRY FACE!!!!:rant:

[semmie]

Do you know the difference between the words in the bible and people's interpretations of them? :clueless: If not, then that's your first step. :ahem:

for the sake of discussion, let's say i don't know the difference between the words in the bible and a person's interpretation of them. what makes your words "truth" and an arminians words "an interpretation"?

So to whom do you turn when you sin? Your own free will? Or the cross? First answer that and then we'll see whether or not Arminianism has anything whatsoever to do with Christianity. :wink:
my salvation is found in christ alone. it always has been, it always will be. and i have never known, heard of, or read of an arminian who actually believed (or proclaimed) that salvation was her doing rather than christ's. that is simply a mischaracterization of the arminian stance. :shrug:

[Bill the Cat]

Arminianism (the belief in free will) is actually a form of secular humanism because:

1) It believes in the power of the human mind, like secular humanism does, not in the soverignty of God, like true Christians do

A steaming load of dung, incorrect, and just plain misrepresentation of the Arminian position.


2) It accepts that human interpretation is correct, not God's word alone

Another misrepresentation

3) It makes salvation dependant on man's works, not on Christ's death and God's election

Another misrepresentation.

4) It glorifies the human mind, not God alone

Another misrepresentation

5) It doesn't acknowledge that faith is from God, but instead claims that faith is from man

Another misrepresentation


You are batting 1.000. :thumb: At least you are consistent!!

Let's play that game...

Calvinism on the other hand:

1) elevates their theology of election above God's Word
2) It makes man nothing more than puppets with God's hand up the back side of only the "elect"
3) dangles the carrot of salvation in front of the reprobate who have no chance in eating it, making Matthew 11:28 a lie
4) forces man to love God, akin to spitirual rape.


See how dumb and absurd that kind of "list of beliefs" crap is?

Arminianism therefore comes from human wisdom, not spiritual wisdom.

Wisdom from the Spirit acknowledges the power of the Spirit and gives credit to the Spirit for all things. Wisdom from the human mind, on the other hand, doesn't acknowledge the power of the Holy Spirit (unless out of political correctness in the Christian world), but credits the human mind with its choices as the secular world does also.

This is so chock full of nonsense I'm not going to continue any further. Hopefully you can now see the fallacy of this course. Discuss instead of condemn.

[Darth Executor]

Carico answer my post plox.

[semmie]

Carico answer my post plox.
hey...i amened your post.

don't tell anyone. i wouldn't want it to get out that i agreed with you or thought you actually said something intelligent. :wink:

[Trout]

Yet another ignorant punk showcasing anything but humility.

I hear that Visine gets the "log out"?

[geebob]

Carico, could you please explain Romans 9:20 to me.

[Longstreet]

2) It makes man nothing more than puppets with God's hand up the back side of only the "elect"
Well THAT'S an unpleasant image!!

[Darth Executor]

hey...i amened your post.

don't tell anyone. i wouldn't want it to get out that i agreed with you or thought you actually said something intelligent. :wink:

Don't worry, I'll make sure to remind everyone I think you're a cow to snuff out those vicious rumors that we're passionate lovers in secret.

[Cowthulu]

Originally posted by Carico (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2012417#post2012417)
Do you know the difference between the words in the bible and people's interpretations of them? :clueless: If not, then that's your first step. :ahem: for the sake of discussion, let's say i don't know the difference between the words in the bible and a person's interpretation of them. what makes your words "truth" and an arminians words "an interpretation"?

:popcorn:

[Philosophickle]

It would be nice if you could quote the bible to back up your cliams instead of quoting a human being. But all that does is prove my OP true about Arminians. :smile: So your claim that the entire NT disagrees with Calvinism is a blatant falsehood as I have shown by the scripture I have quoted.

Arminians don't believe:

1) Romans 9:11-25
2) Romans 7:13-15
3) 1 Corinthians 1:27
4) John 15:16
5) Philippians 2:15
6) 1 John 4:4
7) 2 Corinthians 4:4
8) John 6:44

And many more verses. And if a theology disagrees with even one verse, then it is incorrect. So I have shown the verses that Arminians contradict. And all the Arminians here have quoted is the words of fallible human beings which then makes their theology, fallible. So the only ones here who have shown ignorance of the bible are Arminians. Sorry. :smile:

Frontloading your post with Bible references does not a case make. I'll give you an example of what to do:

[Insert reference]

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

[Insert explanation]

This verse shows that man is able to is able to thwart the purposes of God, meaning he does not have exhaustive control over salvific matters.

See?

So why the anger at Calvinists? Another contradiction. It really bothers you that humans don't have free will, doesn't it?

If it does bother us, it is because God like causing false beliefs.

Sorry, but only God is responsible for our very lives and everything we do.

That's a nice thought. Next time you hear of a five-year old raped by a drug addict uncle, remember that it was actually God raping her.

But Arminians, atheists, and secular humanists want to give credit to themselves for their deeds instead of to God alone. And that's why they aren't true Christians.

I don't know the difference between Christian and true Christian, but you are in a lofty place to rain down that kind of judgment. Besides, we Arminians don't view our actions as allowing us to take credit for our salvation, but rather responsibility for our sin.

I hear that Visine gets the "log out"?

...

[A-Man]

I hear that Visine gets the "log out"?

Thats helpful.

[A-Man]

Arminians don't believe:

1) Romans 9:11-25
2) Romans 7:13-15
3) 1 Corinthians 1:27
4) John 15:16
5) Philippians 2:15
6) 1 John 4:4
7) 2 Corinthians 4:4
8) John 6:44


As a semi-Arminian and Bible believer, I state for posterity that I believe the following verses:
1) Romans 9:11-25
2) Romans 7:13-15
3) 1 Corinthians 1:27
4) John 15:16
5) Philippians 2:15
6) 1 John 4:4
7) 2 Corinthians 4:4
8) John 6:44

What I don't believe is your anathematizing fundamentalist understanding of them.

[Carico]

Frontloading your post with Bible references does not a case make. I'll give you an example of what to do:

[Insert reference]

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

[Insert explanation]

This verse shows that man is able to is able to thwart the purposes of God, meaning he does not have exhaustive control over salvific matters.

See?



If it does bother us, it is because God like causing false beliefs.



That's a nice thought. Next time you hear of a five-year old raped by a drug addict uncle, remember that it was actually God raping her.



I don't know the difference between Christian and true Christian, but you are in a lofty place to rain down that kind of judgment. Besides, we Arminians don't view our actions as allowing us to take credit for our salvation, but rather responsibility for our sin.



...


And why weren't the Pharisees baptized by John? Jesus tells us in these verses:

1) John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
2) John 9:19, "For judgment I have come into the world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
3) Romans 10:19, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no udnerstanding."
4) 2 Corinthians 4:4, "For the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the glory of the gospel of Christ who is the image of God."

So the Pharisees did not reject Christ out of free choice, but from the punishment of God because of their disobedience. So no, election is not up to man, but it's only up to God, as Romans 9:11 says very clearly. So again, you are in error.

It does no good to only know a few verses in the bible. You have to know the whole bible in order understand it correctly. :smile:

And by the way, most of the words in the bible are easy enough for a child to understand. All literate people have learned those words in elementary school. So it's not a lack of understanding of words like; "Before" "the" "twins" "were" "born", etc. It's whether or not you believe those simple words. Calvinists believe them, Arminians don't. It's that simple. :smile:

Jesus tells us that by the fruits of false teachers, we will recognize them. I believe Jesus there, you obviously don't. So that's another verse of Christ's that I'll add to the list of verses that Arminians don't believe.

[Philosophickle]

Historically, atheists have resisted the notion of free-will. Perhaps atheists have more in common with Calvinists than they think.

:hrm:

[Carico]

Historically, atheists have resisted the notion of free-will. Perhaps atheists have more in common with Calvinists than they think.

:hrm:

Since atheists don't believe in God or the devil, then they can't attribute their actions to anyone other than human beings. So you are in error. The only difference is that most atheists admit they can't help themselves. And that's the first step toward becoming a Christian, which Arminians haven't reached yet. So, again, where do Arminians go when they sin? To their own free will to stop sinning? Or the cross? Or don't they yet know why Jesus died for them? :nsm: It doesn't appear so. :wink:

[Philosophickle]

Since atheists don't believe in God or the devil, then they can't attribute their actions to anyone other than human beings. So you are in error.

How is it possible to be this ignorant? Atheists of the deterministic flavor believe that their actions are the result of prior causes that are out of reach for the human to mess with.

[Carico]

How is it possible to be this ignorant? Atheists of the deterministic flavor believe that their actions are the result of prior causes that are out of reach for the human to mess with.

You mean aliens? Or how about monkeys that bred human beings? :lol: Sorry, friend, but I've been witnessing to atheists for years and none of them has attributed their actions to the decisions of aliens or monkeys. So it is you who has again displayed incredible ignorance. :ahem:

[Xavier]

You mean aliens? Or how about monkeys that bred human beings? :lol: Sorry, friend, but I've been witnessing to atheists for years and none of them has attributed their actions to the decisions of aliens or monkeys. So it is you who has again displayed incredible ignorance. :ahem:

Oh God... Those poor atheists.

[Carico]

Oh God... Those poor atheists.


I agree. they're headed straight for hell as are all people who have no clue who runs the universe.

[Philosophickle]

I can't take this anymore.

ETA: I was going to reply to something about alien monkies, but then I realized that the ridiculosity of the answers required, nevermind this conversation, are on par with the following statements:

I have a mouthful of cellulite.
My grandma's thigh smells like horse feet.
Johhny the Scot beats his wife with a sockful of oranges.

[Xavier]

I agree. they're headed straight for hell as are all people who have no clue who runs the universe.

No, I meant that they had to deal with you and face confirmation that Christianity is exactly what their impression of it was... Woefully abundant in ignorance and lacking in understanding.

May God have mercy on them in spite of his servant.

[Carico]

No, I meant that they had to deal with you and face confirmation that Christianity is exactly what their impression of it was... Woefully abundant in ignorance and lacking in understanding.

May God have mercy on them in spite of his servant.

I knew exactly what you meant. But as usual, your comment backfired on you. :wink: And considering you still haven't provided any scripture to back up your claims, then your comments have no validity. Sorry.

[Carico]

I knew exactly what you meant. But as usual, your comment backfired on you. :wink: And considering you still haven't provided any scripture to back up your claims, then your comments have no validity. Sorry.

The bible tells us to sharply rebuke false teachers. So I'm serving the Lord very well which you would know if you believed the bible. :wink:

Thou shalt not disobey the rules of this forum and double post. I kinda vaguely recall the Lord expecting us to respect other's property, such as this website, and obey rules, etc. Try serving the Lord and following the rules of expected behavior on this forum as well

[Xavier]

I knew exactly what you meant. But as usual, your comment backfired on you. :wink:

You being dense is my comment backfiring? :eh: That's an odd notion.

And considering you still haven't provided any scripture to back up your claims, then your comments have no validity. Sorry.

Oh, my apologies... You are a white-washed tomb. Matthew 23:13, 27-28

[Carico]

You being dense is my comment backfiring? :eh: That's an odd notion.



Oh, my apologies... You are a white-washed tomb. Matthew 23:13, 27-28

White-washed tombs apply only to those who try to clean their cups from the outside, instead of being washed by the Holy Spirit on the inside. It also doesn't prove Arminianism true in the least. So it's a futile attempt to simply attack me. But since you can't provide any scripture to back up your beliefs, then I can see why you have such a desire to attack those who can. So I forgive you. :smile:

[Longstreet]

I knew exactly what you meant. But as usual, your comment backfired on you. And considering you still haven't provided any scripture to back up your claims, then your comments have no validity. Sorry.

The bible tells us to sharply rebuke false teachers. So I'm serving the Lord very well which you would know if you believed the bible.
Is carico arguing with herself? This thread gets weirder all the time.


I have a mouthful of cellulite.
My grandma's thigh smells like horse feet.
Johhny the Scot beats his wife with a sockful of oranges.
A noble effort, but you're going to have to try harder than that if you want something stranger than carico's premise.

[Xavier]

White-washed tombs apply only to those who try to clean their cups from the outside, instead of being washed by the Holy Spirit on the inside. It also doesn't prove Arminianism true in the least. So it's a futile attempt to simply attack me. But since you can't provide any scripture to back up your beliefs, then I can see why you have such a desire to attack those who can. So I forgive you. :smile:

Yeah, I didn't figure you'd get it anyway... And since you didn't back up your response with scripture, your opinion is worthless.

I WIN!!!! :woohoo:

[Raphael]

Carico,

You have set up a completely false idea of what Arminianism is.

You have then decided that your very human idea of Arminianism is correct and that all Arminans believe what you say they do.

And then you've announced that they are all hell-bound heretics, based on your own definition of Arminianism.

Why should they defend themselves from what is plainly a strawman by someone who seems to be completely ignorant of their beliefs?

Your posts show nothing of the humility you claim us Calvinists all have, but instead you are coming across as very arrogant.

Tip: You do NOT start off a theological debate by effectively saying: "You all believe that the sky is purple with orange polka dots, therefore I'm right and you're all going to burn hell."

Can you please provide the source for your statement about John Wesley. Or you must apologise and retract your comments about him.
And I suggest you follow Spurgeon's example.

[Carico]

Carico,

You have set up a completely false idea of what Arminianism is.

You have then decided that your very human idea of Arminianism is correct and that all Arminans believe what you say they do.

And then you've announced that they are all hell-bound heretics, based on your own definition of Arminianism.

Why should they defend themselves from what is plainly a strawman by someone who seems to be completely ignorant of their beliefs?

Your posts show nothing of the humility you claim us Calvinists all have, but instead you are coming across as very arrogant.

Tip: You do NOT start off a theological debate by effectively saying: "You all believe that the sky is purple with orange polka dots, therefore I'm right and you're all going to burn hell."

Can you please provide the source for your statement about John Wesley. Or you must apologise and retract your comments about him.
And I suggest you follow Spurgeon's example.

Simple. If you had scripture to defend your beliefs, then not only should it be easy to do so, but it should be enjoyable for you to pass along the Word of God. :smile:

But since you don't have scripture to back up your beliefs, then that alone shows that Arminianism is a false teaching. So the proof is in your lack of scripture, not in anything that I say. :smile:

Below is a short bio of John Wesley's life:

Wesley, John (June 17, 1703–March 2, 1791), was an evangelist and religious leader who founded the Methodist denomination. While students at Oxford University, he and his brother Charles formed a scholarly Christian group called, the “Holy Club.” The Wesleys were close friends with George Whitefield, the renowned preacher of the American Great Awakening. In 1738, the Wesleys set sail from England to Georgia to serve as missionaries. During the tumultuous voyage at sea, they observed the faith of the Moravian Christians. There was awakened within them a desire for a more intimate relationship with God, eventually leading them to faith in Christ. Together with George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley were among the most influential ministers of the 1700’s.
In his journal, John Wesley wrote:
On shipboard, however, I was again active in outward works: where it pleased God, of his free mercy, to give me twenty-six of the Moravian brethren for companions, who endeavored to shew me a more excellent way.
But I understood it not at first. I was too learned and too wise; so that it seemed foolishness unto me. And I continued … trusting in that righteousness whereby no flesh can be justified.
All the time I was at Savannah I was thus beating the air. Being ignorant of the righteousness of Christ, which, by a living faith in him bringeth salvation to every one that believeth, I sought to establish my own righteousness, and so laboured in the fire all my days.
In my return to England, January 1738, being in imminent danger of death, and very uneasy on that account, I was strongly convinced that the cause of uneasiness was unbelief, and that the gaining a true, living faith was the one thing needful for me. …
So that when Peter Boehler, whom God prepared for me as soon as I came to London, affirmed of true faith in Christ … that it has those two fruits inseparably attending it, “Dominion over sin, and constant peace, from a sense of forgiveness,” I was quite amazed, and looked upon it as a new Gospel. …
In the evening, I went very unwillingly to a Society in Aldersgate-Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed.
I felt I did trust in Christ; Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.
On June 11, 1739, in his Journal,, John Wesley wrote:
I look upon the world as my parish.
On February 12, 1772, in his Journal, John Wesley wrote:
That execrable sum of all villainies, commonly called the Slave Trade.
John Wesley wrote as his Rule:
Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can.
John Wesley stated:
My mother was the source from which I derived the guiding principles of my life

So I suggest you read about John Wesley before you look to him for the truth instead of to Jesus as your one teacher. :wink:

[Raphael]

Simple. If you had scripture to defend your beliefs, then not only should it be easy to do so, but it should be enjoyable for you to pass along the Word of God. :smile:

But since you don't have scripture to back up your beliefs, then that alone shows that Arminianism is a false teaching. So the proof is in your lack of scripture, not in anything that I say. :smile: Apparantly you completely and utterly missed the point where I said that I am a 5-point Calvinist.
I'm certainly not going to into all the scripture used to support the Arminian viewpoint when there are Arminians here who are way more capable of defending Arminianism than someone like me (i.e. a calvinist) is.

What I am objecting to is that you've developed a completely false idea of what Arminianism and are using it to decide that they're all heretics.

Why should they defend themselves from what is a completely false representation of what they believe?

Below is a short bio of John Wesley's life:

Wesley, John (June 17, 1703–March 2, 1791), was an evangelist and religious leader who founded the Methodist denomination. While students at Oxford University, he and his brother Charles formed a scholarly Christian group called, the “Holy Club.” The Wesleys were close friends with George Whitefield, the renowned preacher of the American Great Awakening. In 1738, the Wesleys set sail from England to Georgia to serve as missionaries. During the tumultuous voyage at sea, they observed the faith of the Moravian Christians. There was awakened within them a desire for a more intimate relationship with God, eventually leading them to faith in Christ. Together with George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley were among the most influential ministers of the 1700’s.
In his journal, John Wesley wrote:
On shipboard, however, I was again active in outward works: where it pleased God, of his free mercy, to give me twenty-six of the Moravian brethren for companions, who endeavored to shew me a more excellent way.
But I understood it not at first. I was too learned and too wise; so that it seemed foolishness unto me. And I continued … trusting in that righteousness whereby no flesh can be justified.
All the time I was at Savannah I was thus beating the air. Being ignorant of the righteousness of Christ, which, by a living faith in him bringeth salvation to every one that believeth, I sought to establish my own righteousness, and so laboured in the fire all my days.
In my return to England, January 1738, being in imminent danger of death, and very uneasy on that account, I was strongly convinced that the cause of uneasiness was unbelief, and that the gaining a true, living faith was the one thing needful for me. …
So that when Peter Boehler, whom God prepared for me as soon as I came to London, affirmed of true faith in Christ … that it has those two fruits inseparably attending it, “Dominion over sin, and constant peace, from a sense of forgiveness,” I was quite amazed, and looked upon it as a new Gospel. …
In the evening, I went very unwillingly to a Society in Aldersgate-Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed.
I felt I did trust in Christ; Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.
On June 11, 1739, in his Journal,, John Wesley wrote:
I look upon the world as my parish.
On February 12, 1772, in his Journal, John Wesley wrote:
That execrable sum of all villainies, commonly called the Slave Trade.
John Wesley wrote as his Rule:
Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can.
John Wesley stated:
My mother was the source from which I derived the guiding principles of my life

So I suggest you read about John Wesley before you look to him for the truth instead of to Jesus as your one teacher. :wink:I suggest that you look again at what Charles Spurgeon said about John Wesley.

Have you thought, that perhaps what John Wesley meant was that his mother was the one who laid down the foundations of Wesley's principles? Like a good parent should? I certainly will be laying down Godly principles in my daughter's life, I I would be honoured if she acknowledged that I was the source of them....It would mean I did the job right.

Or do you think that in 2 Timothy 1:5 where Paul comments that Timothy's faith was first in his grandmother and his mother that Timothy's faith literally came from his mother and grandmother? No, of course not, but rather his mother and grandmother laid down the groundwork for that faith.

(2 Tim 1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. )

[Longstreet]

Have you thought, that perhaps what John Wesley meant was that his mother was the one who laid down the foundations of Wesley's principles? Like a good parent should? I certainly will be laying down Godly principles in my daughter's life, I I would be honoured if she acknowledged that I was the source of them....It would mean I did the job right.

Or do you think that in 2 Timothy 1:5 where Paul comments that Timothy's faith was first in his grandmother and his mother that Timothy's faith literally came from his mother and grandmother? No, of course not, but rather his mother and grandmother laid down the groundwork for that faith.

(2 Tim 1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. )

Given her posts as evidence, I have serious doubts that she's given the matter ANY thought at all.

I AM impressed that she's managed to turn such a useless OP into 5 pages worth of material.

[Carico]

Apparantly you completely and utterly missed the point where I said that I am a 5-point Calvinist.
I'm certainly not going to into all the scripture used to support the Arminian viewpoint when there are Arminians here who are way more capable of defending Arminianism than someone like me (i.e. a calvinist) is.

What I am objecting to is that you've developed a completely false idea of what Arminianism and are using it to decide that they're all heretics.

Why should they defend themselves from what is a completely false representation of what they believe?

I suggest that you look again at what Charles Spurgeon said about John Wesley.

Have you thought, that perhaps what John Wesley meant was that his mother was the one who laid down the foundations of Wesley's principles? Like a good parent should? I certainly will be laying down Godly principles in my daughter's life, I I would be honoured if she acknowledged that I was the source of them....It would mean I did the job right.

Or do you think that in 2 Timothy 1:5 where Paul comments that Timothy's faith was first in his grandmother and his mother that Timothy's faith literally came from his mother and grandmother? No, of course not, but rather his mother and grandmother laid down the groundwork for that faith.

(2 Tim 1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. )

"The guiding principles of his life? " Please read 1 Corinthians 3:11, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." So Jesus laid the foundation on which true Christians build. Therefore, either John didn't follow the foundations that Crist laid or he didn't credit Christ with that foundation. It's one or the other.

And the faith didn't come from his grandmother, it lived in his grandmother. Faith comes only from God as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8-9. So no, Timothy's grandmother didn't give him faith. She received it from God as did Timothy. :ahem: So please read scripture carefully.

Arminiansim is heresy. But not all Arminians are heretics because not all have read the bible eough to know that Arminianism is heresy. Heresies are false teachings. And teaching that we can choose not to sin of our own free will is a false teaching because it contradicts much scripture as I have already presented. Once Arminians know where to turn when they sin and why, they will understand why Arminianism is a false teaching. Afterall, both Calvinists and Arminians can't both be right. One group is a heresy and one is not. So if you are a 5-pt. Calvinist, and claim that Arminianism isn't heresy, then you must believe that Calvinism is because the 2 theologies oppose each other. So which is it?

[Carico]

That was a mistake. I was surprised that it posted twice because I thought it didn't post the first time. So I wasn't deliberately disobeying the rules. Those who have personally attacked me, however, have been disobeying the rules from the very first response to me. It will be interesting to see whether or not they are warned for disobeying the rules, instead of only me.

When we say do not dispute moderation in the thread, we aren't fooling. Please take your concerns to staff or to the Boiler Room.

[Raphael]

"The guiding principles of his life? " Please read 1 Corinthians 3:11, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." So Jesus laid the foundation on which true Christians build. Therefore, either John didn't follow the foundations that Crist laid or he didn't credit Christ with that foundation. It's one or the other.You making a complete strawman to attempt to discredit someone whom other Calvinists to be one of the most excellent Christians around.
May I repeat Spurgeon's comments about Wesley? (taken from Spurgeon's A Defence of Calvinism (http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm))
Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.
Think of this a little: "My mother was the source of the guiding principles of my life" can, and in all likely hood did, mean that his mother originally taught him those things.
You say that you are a mother of 3. Have you not taught your children not to lie? not to steal? to love God? Have you then not been a source of those principles?
An acknowledgement that his mother taught him these things, and thus is a source of them, does not mean that Wesley thought she was the ultimate source of these principles.

And the faith didn't come from his grandmother, it lived in his grandmother. Faith comes only from God as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8-9. So no, Timothy's grandmother didn't give him faith. She received it from God as did Timothy. :ahem: So please read scripture carefully.:argh: You've completely and utterly misunderstood the point I was making

Arminiansim is heresy. No Pelagianism is a heresy.
But not all Arminians are heretics because not all have read the bible eough to know that Arminianism is heresy.So by your logic people are not heretics if they do not know that what they beleive is a heresy. Well then why tell them it's a heresy? Then they won't be heretics.

Heresies are false teachings.[quote]Wow we agree on something.

[QUOTE=Carico;2012799]And teaching that we can choose not to sin of our own free will is a false teaching because it contradicts much scripture as I have already presented.you have just demonstrated that you are infact a hyper-calvinist which is considered a heresy by most Calvinists.
You are denying the Calvinist doctrine of free choice/agency which is used to demonstrate the responsibility of man.
You are removing man's responsibility for his actions which in turn means that God is infact the author of man's sin.
:teeth:

Once Arminians know where to turn when they sin and why, they will understand why Arminianism is a false teaching. I do not know of a single arminian who will not boldly say that the only person to turn to when they sin is to Christ.
You are once again setting a strawman argument on flames.

Afterall, both Calvinists and Arminians can't both be right. One group is a heresy and one is not. So if you are a 5-pt. Calvinist, and claim that Arminianism isn't heresy, then you must believe that Calvinism is because the 2 theologies oppose each other. So which is it?:argh: No No No. pelagianism and hyper-calvinism are heresies.
while the two theologies are different, they are both based on scripture, with each one giving a different weighting and understanding to the key verses.
As a 5 point Calvinist I beleive in Perseverance of the Saints, I can provide the scripture to back it up. But that means I have to provide an explanation for those verses where the saints don't seem to have persevered. (1 Tim 1: 18-20, 1 Tim 5:8, 1 Tim 5:11-12, 1 Tim 6:10, 1 Tim 6:21, 2 Tim 2:17-18).
Now while in beleive that Calvinism does answer those, I must admit that the Arminians have a view equally as valid as mine, as theirs is also based on scripture.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are human frameworks used to understand the Scriptures. And I believe whole heartedly that Calvinism is the correct framework. That doesn't mean I can decide that another framework, also based on scripture is heretical because it disagrees with me.

[Bill the Cat]

A steaming load of dung, incorrect, and just plain misrepresentation of the Arminian position.



Let's play that game...

Calvinism on the other hand:

1) elevates their theology of election above God's Word
2) It makes man nothing more than puppets with God's hand up the back side of only the "elect"
3) dangles the carrot of salvation in front of the reprobate who have no chance in eating it, making Matthew 11:28 a lie
4) forces man to love God, akin to spitirual rape.


See how dumb and absurd that kind of "list of beliefs" crap is?





:bump: since you might have missed it... :rasberry:

[Longstreet]

:argh: No No No. pelagianism and hyper-calvinism are heresies.
while the two theologies are different, they are both based on scripture, with each one giving a different weighting and understanding to the key verses.
As a 5 point Calvinist I beleive in Perseverance of the Saints, I can provide the scripture to back it up. But that means I have to provide an explanation for those verses where the saints don't seem to have persevered. (1 Tim 1: 18-20, 1 Tim 5:8, 1 Tim 5:11-12, 1 Tim 6:10, 1 Tim 6:21, 2 Tim 2:17-18).
Now while in beleive that Calvinism does answer those, I must admit that the Arminians have a view equally as valid as mine, as theirs is also based on scripture.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are human frameworks used to understand the Scriptures. And I believe whole heartedly that Calvinism is the correct framework. That doesn't mean I can decide that another framework, also based on scripture is heretical because it disagrees with me.
:thumb: :yes: :thumb: :yes: :thumb: :yes: :thumb: :yes:

[Sparko]

Sorry, but since you haven't provided any scripture to back up your claims, then the only one who's playing games is you. It's called verbal volleyball. So I'll stick to the scripture I provided for the truth. You can continue your game without me. :wink:


exactly which scriptures have you provided to back up YOUR claims, Carico? All I see in your opening post are a lot of stupid assertians without a lick of scripture to back them up. Not to mention a complete lack of historical knowledge.

sheesh.

[Carico]

exactly which scriptures have you provided to back up YOUR claims, Carico? All I see in your opening post are a lot of stupid assertians without a lick of scripture to back them up. Not to mention a complete lack of historical knowledge.

sheesh.

Then read through the thread to see how many scriptures I have provided. I have listed many. :smile:

[Timothy Leary]

Darth, you rock.

Pearls to you.

Man, the Calvinist god is pretty weak. My God is sovereign AND can give humans free will at the same time.



What does this mean? All humans interpret what they sense. That's how we learn stuff.




Can you explain this for me please?
Revelation 20:12-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12-15;&version=9;)



I searched the KJV and didn't find any ban on glorifying anything.



Actually, like #1, this is just what certain brain dead Calvinists think Arminians think.

[Sparko]

Then read through the thread to see how many scriptures I have provided. I have listed many. :smile:

You later gave a shopping list of verses with no explanation behind them.

Well guess what? That's not an argument.

I agree and believe every one of those verses and I am an arminian (well molinist actually)

You are a dolt.

[Carico]

You making a complete strawman to attempt to discredit someone whom other Calvinists to be one of the most excellent Christians around.
May I repeat Spurgeon's comments about Wesley? (taken from Spurgeon's A Defence of Calvinism (http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm))

Think of this a little: "My mother was the source of the guiding principles of my life" can, and in all likely hood did, mean that his mother originally taught him those things.
You say that you are a mother of 3. Have you not taught your children not to lie? not to steal? to love God? Have you then not been a source of those principles?
An acknowledgement that his mother taught him these things, and thus is a source of them, does not mean that Wesley thought she was the ultimate source of these principles.

:argh: You've completely and utterly misunderstood the point I was making

No Pelagianism is a heresy.
So by your logic people are not heretics if they do not know that what they beleive is a heresy. Well then why tell them it's a heresy? Then they won't be heretics.

[QUOTE=Carico;2012799]Heresies are false teachings.[quote]Wow we agree on something.

you have just demonstrated that you are infact a hyper-calvinist which is considered a heresy by most Calvinists.
You are denying the Calvinist doctrine of free choice/agency which is used to demonstrate the responsibility of man.
You are removing man's responsibility for his actions which in turn means that God is infact the author of man's sin.
:teeth:

I do not know of a single arminian who will not boldly say that the only person to turn to when they sin is to Christ.
You are once again setting a strawman argument on flames.

:argh: No No No. pelagianism and hyper-calvinism are heresies.
while the two theologies are different, they are both based on scripture, with each one giving a different weighting and understanding to the key verses.
As a 5 point Calvinist I beleive in Perseverance of the Saints, I can provide the scripture to back it up. But that means I have to provide an explanation for those verses where the saints don't seem to have persevered. (1 Tim 1: 18-20, 1 Tim 5:8, 1 Tim 5:11-12, 1 Tim 6:10, 1 Tim 6:21, 2 Tim 2:17-18).
Now while in beleive that Calvinism does answer those, I must admit that the Arminians have a view equally as valid as mine, as theirs is also based on scripture.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are human frameworks used to understand the Scriptures. And I believe whole heartedly that Calvinism is the correct framework. That doesn't mean I can decide that another framework, also based on scripture is heretical because it disagrees with me.

Sorry, we can't both have free will and not have free will. It's one or the other. So both "interrpretations'" are not equally valid.

The word of God is easy enough for a child to understand which is why Jesus praised God for hiding himself from the wise and learned and revealing himself to little children. So there is no reason to "misinterpret" the bible. All one has to do is believe it.

So since Romans 9:11-25 is very clear that God's election, not man's effort or even desire is what determines who is saved, then one either believes those passages or he doesn't. It's that simple.

Secondly, since no Arminian has yet answered the question of who they turn to when they sin, their own free will or the cross, then either they don't know why Jesus died or they know that the answer contradicts their belief system. So their lack of answers to that question is very revealing.

If we could choose to sin or not sin, choose God or not choose God of our own free will, then of course we wouldn't need Jesus for a thing and he died for nothing. According to Arminians, we could all save ourselves but simply choose not to. But not so, says the bible. We are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves as Paul tells us in Romans 7:13-25. That is biblical. And no amount of personal attacks against me can change that one iota. So attacking me is a waste of time.

[Sparko]

well gee carico, maybe we poor Arminians can't help believing we have free will. God predestined us to believe in it.

[Raphael]

Sorry, we can't both have free will and not have free will. It's one or the other. So both "interrpretations'" are not equally valid. Actually I believe that what we Calvinists call Free Agency is fairly close to what many Arminians call free will.

Do you agree with the calvinist doctrine of free agency?

The word of God is easy enough for a child to understand which is why Jesus praised God for hiding himself from the wise and learned and revealing himself to little children. So there is no reason to "misinterpret" the bible. All one has to do is believe it.Actually I know many parts of the Word of God that western children would have great difficulty understanding as it was written to a different time and culture to ours.

So since Romans 9:11-25 is very clear that God's election, not man's effort or even desire is what determines who is saved, then one either believes those passages or he doesn't. It's that simple.
:sigh: Arminians take the following: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30, ESV) to mean that God's predestination is based on His foreknowledge of their choices.

Secondly, since no Arminian has yet answered the question of who they turn to when they sin, their own free will or the cross, then either they don't know why Jesus died or they know that the answer contradicts their belief system. So their lack of answers to that question is very revealing. Perhaps because you waving a huge big strawman around. Arminians turn to the cross when they sin, same as us Calvinists.

If we could choose to sin or not sin, choose God or not choose God of our own free will, then of course we wouldn't need Jesus for a thing and he died for nothing. But not so, says the bible. We are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves as Paul tells us in Romans 7:13-25. That is biblical.Have you ever looked at the Calvinist doctrine of Free Agency? Many Arminians would consider out Free Agency ideas to be different terms for the same things they believe.

And no amount of personal attacks against me can change that one iota. So attacking me is a waste of time.Telling you that your arguements are out of line and that you're attacking a strawman is not attacking you personally.

Attacking you personally would be me slinging insults at you and calling you names. Have I done that? No I have not.

What I have done is attempt to point out that your entire arguement is based on a strawman. And I pointed out that you grossly misrepresented John Wesley.

You're attacking what you think Arminians believe with little or no understanding of what they really believe.

[Arminian]

So since Romans 9:11-25 is very clear that God's election, not man's effort or even desire is what determines who is saved, then one either believes those passages or he doesn't. It's that simple.

On the contrary, the passage merely compares two types of believers. The point being that Israel's investment up to this point does not obligate God, so God can do with them as he pleases. Their belief did save them from God's wrath, but now that Christ has come that old way is "not according to knowledge," regardless of how much zeal is behind it. Righteousness can't be obtained that way (Romans 9:31-32).

Secondly, since no Arminian has yet answered the question of who they turn to when they sin, their own free will or the cross, then either they don't know why Jesus died or they know that the answer contradicts their belief system. So their lack of answers to that question is very revealing.

The sentence doesn't make sense. Who would "turn to their free will" when they sin? Turning to the cross isn't irresistible, so what's the point?

If we could choose to sin or not sin, choose God or not choose God of our own free will, then of course we wouldn't need Jesus for a thing and he died for nothing. According to Arminians, we could all save ourselves but simply choose not to. But not so, says the bible. We are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves as Paul tells us in Romans 7:13-25. That is biblical. And no amount of personal attacks against me can change that one iota. So attacking me is a waste of time.

Everyone chooses whether or not they sin, and every Calvinist agrees. No one thinks, however, that anyone will successfully avoid sinning on an ongoing basis.

You reference Romans 7:13-25. Who is the "we" that you are talking about? Believers? Humanity?

[Timothy Leary]

Since atheists don't believe in God or the devil, then they can't attribute their actions to anyone other than human beings. So you are in error.

Wrong again.
There are quite a few atheists who believe that we do not have free will because we are allegedly slaves to our genetic programming (DNA).

[Timothy Leary]

The irony of this all is that Calvinism and Arminianism are - whether or not hotheads like Carico will admit it - virtually the same thing (just different ways of looking at it).

I originally thought my views were Calvinist, until poked into them a bit and realized they were closer to Arminian.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I thought I'd stop by and throw a petunia on the grave of this dead thread, but instead I find---this....

:flowers:

Well, anyway....

[Cowthulu]

Then read through the thread to see how many scriptures I have provided. I have listed many. :smile:


THE BIBLE (www.biblegateway.com)

:woohoo:

I win!!!

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I was going to suggest that this thread be moved to the gameroom and made into a "last poster wins," but it got moved here instead....

[dizzle]

For one, I don't play games with people any more.

Good for you. I am getting to that point but first I am trying to make sure I am not the one provoking the dance (NOT AT ALL saying you are doing that, I am just saying that is something I have to work on)

[Yankee_Doodle]

Consider these passages Carico:

Isaiah 1:14

Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. The have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.

1:18 Come now let us reason together

1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land;
1:20 but if you resist and rebel, you be devoured by the sword.


Romans 5:1-2 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

Deuteronomy 30

15See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

16In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

17But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

18I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

19I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

No Arminian I know fails to acknowledge that only the grace of God can save us -- but that grace is a free gift available to anyone who willingly accepts it -- as the Bible states so clearly. Grace -- like any other gift may be accepted or declined by the giftee. Perhaps you are moved by Romans 9 or 8:28-30 -- but in fact Romans 9 is actually explaining it's a mistake to think anyone is chosen by God unconditionally (I'll be glad to explain my interpretation of any Biblical verse that you think reveals irresistable grace or unconditional election)

Compare if you will:

God gives will to those doing wrong; He even suggests wicked and dishonorable affections, not only permissively but efficaciously, and that for His own glory. The words of John Calvin taken from his book "Calvin on Secret Providence."

with

James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.

Calvin felt that God has secret providence not expressed in scripture (that is God intentionally confuses us to I suppose weed out the reprobate). However, consider

1 Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion"

[Sparko]

THE BIBLE (http://www.biblegateway.com)

:woohoo:

I win!!!

wow. you do win.

:lmbo:

[lilpixieofterror]

Cool, I'm a secular humanist! :woot:

Do I win a prize?

[Timothy Leary]

Cool, I'm a secular humanist! :woot:

Do I win a prize?
I didn't think a secular humanist would survive boot camp.

[Carico]

Cool, I'm a secular humanist! :woot:

Do I win a prize?

Unfortunately, the only prize that secular humanists will receive are earthly rewards, not heavenly rewards which the bible tells us all over the place. Secular humanists aren't Christians which is why they use the term "secular". So you need to look up that word in the dictionary to understand why. But if you're proud of being secular instead of Christian, then I'm afraid your pride will only last a short time. Sorry. But at least one Arminian is honest enough to admit that he's a secular humanist. So I'll give you that.

[Timothy Leary]

Unfortunately, the only prize that secular humanists will receive are earthly rewards, not heavenly rewards which the bible tells us all over the place. Secular humanists aren't Christians which is why they use the term "secular". So you need to look up that word to understand why. But if you're proud of being secular instead of Christian, then I'm afraid your pride will only last a short time. Sorry.

Dude. You need a sense of humor.

[Carico]

Darth, you rock.

Pearls to you.

So then if you can choose not to sin, then what do you need Jesus for? :huh:

[Carico]

Dude. You need a sense of humor.

I'm sorry, but I don't laugh about people's eternal fate. You can if you like.

[Raphael]

sarcasm
One entry found for sarcasm.


Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
synonym see WIT

[Xavier]

clue·less (klōō'lĭs)
adj. Lacking understanding or knowledge.

[semmie]

for the sake of discussion, let's say i don't know the difference between the words in the bible and a person's interpretation of them. what makes your words "truth" and an arminians words "an interpretation"?

my salvation is found in christ alone. it always has been, it always will be. and i have never known, heard of, or read of an arminian who actually believed (or proclaimed) that salvation was her doing rather than christ's. that is simply a mischaracterization of the arminian stance. :shrug:

:bump:

just in case you missed this, carico...i would be interested in hearing your answer.

[Arminian]

Hey, I aswered the questions I was told no Arminians could answer. I even answered them in such a way as to draw fire by looking like an easy target. I guess I really am chopped liver.

(Good idea to move the thread, btw.)

[Timothy Leary]

So then if you can choose not to sin, then what do you need Jesus for? :huh:

If there is no free will, then why bother preaching? After all, God already made their choice for them.

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

This is not the place for you to go about bashing other people for their beliefs when you yourself don't know what they believe or even what you believe.
I am a Calvinist and I was a Arminian and all that changed was a few concepts of what I belief and it wasn't much of a difference. Your OP suggests that the two beliefs are like night and day when in actual fact that is not so.
Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
Salvation is possible by grace alone
Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus
Jesus' atonement was for all people
God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faithThe five points of Calvinism, which can be remembered by the English mnemonic TULIP are:
Total depravity (or total inability): As a consequence of the fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. According to the view, people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)
Unconditional election: God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy.
Limited atonement (or particular redemption or definite atonement): The death of Christ actually takes away the penalty of sins of those on whom God has chosen to have mercy. It is "limited" to taking away the sins of the elect, not of all humanity, and it is "definite" and "particular" because atonement is certain for those particular persons.
Irresistible grace (or efficacious grace): The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.
Perseverance of the saints (or preservation of the saints): Any person who has once been truly saved from damnation must necessarily persevere and cannot later be condemned. The word saints is used in the sense in which it is used in the Bible to refer to all who are set apart by God.There are differences but not ones that anyone could say caused you not to be a Christian. they are merely beliefs of Christianity and therefore have nothing to do with Secular Humanism.

Now hyper Calvinists believe:
God is the source of sin and of evil
a sign of election must be sought prior to repentance
men have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect
the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
it is wrong to proselytize ie to convert people to Christianity
there is no common grace
God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect
only Calvinists are ChristiansPelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will, Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality.

I say the two heresies here are the last two that I have done a little RESEARCH on.
Maybe this might help you to understand these individual beliefs and next time make a better OP worth reading.

Scripture can be mean different things to different people and in order for you to make your point you will need to give the scripture and tell us what you have gleaned from it otherwise we will never know what you mean.

If you have anything else you would like to say I suggest you choose your words very carefully especially if you are only making assumptions.

[Yankee_Doodle]

In fairness what is generally referred to as hyper-Calvinism was truly John Calvin's view. Much of the TULIP doctrine commonly associated with Calvin didn't differ much from the ideas of earlier reformers. However, Calvin differed in the key aspect that he actually believed God tempted man to sin (in other words He destined to damnation). Here he departed from Augustine (who many early reformers followed) who felt God destined to glory but left the rest to their free will. Augustine attempted to mesh his preconceived notions of immutibility and divine sovereignty wrought from Platonic philosophy with Scripture -- Calvin stated what he felt was obvious -- if one is not destined to glory they are destined to damnation by default (although He went farther and blamed God for sin -- directly contravening James).

Both of these theologies have been rejected by the larger protestant movement -- and in fact those who held them eventually became known as radical protestants. Take the puritans for example -- who yes burned those they felt were witches at the stake -- they were hyper-Calvinists. It's important to note that Calvin himself was somewhat of an egotist. His dogma included attempts to create a new Papacy with of course him as Pope (in Geneva), having detractors executed, and ordering excommunication for those who disagreed with him (differing little from the RCC Martin Luther rebelled from).

[Yankee_Doodle]

I'm sorry, but I don't laugh about people's eternal fate. You can if you like.

I still don't see a reply to my scriptural verses provided in post 96? No insults -- just the word of God to bolster my position. If you're going to come on here so hot & heavy against Arminians, with all due respect at least support your view with scripture?

I can see being a Calvinist if one relies on the maybe half dozen or so passages that might support Calvins view -- however, it is only because those passages are ambiguous and generally misunderstood that anyone would go against Holy Scripture in the way Calvin did. Take Romans 9 probably the most misunderstood chapter in the NT. I could see how a novice would misunderstand that verse.

I agree -- salvation of our souls is no laughing matter. Thus, open your ears and soften your heart & allow yourself to consider these tenants of mine, which I believe are irrefutably supported by the Bible:

1) only through submitting to God can man overcome his depravity
2) Grace is a free gift available to all -- the elect are those who are willing to recieve it and who become part of Christs body (which is comprised of all believers)
3) God does indeed give man a choice -- submit to Him or die in our sins
4) after we "willingly" submit to God He gives us faith in different apportions and to be used in different ways.
5) God elected Christ foremost -- and those in the body of Christ
6) God wants all to be saved -- however, all will not be saved

Remember -- Calvin's view of immutibility and sovereignty was drawn from Augustine -- who in turn took it from the Greek philosopher Plato (the ultimate humanist). Plato predated Christianity by well over 300 years & likely had little or no contact with Judaic civilization. Therefore, to buy into Calvin is to necessarily buy into the humanist philosophy of Plato. Not that the Greeks weren't great philosophers in their own right -- however, to use them to form presumptions about God was the fatal flaw of both Calvin and Augustine. That view permeated into all of their notions of God and impacted how they interpretted Scripture.

I try to interpret Scripture without any such preconcieved notions -- holding to sola scriptura in its purest sense. Therefore, again please respond to my post 96. As God said in Isaiah "let's reason together."

AW

[Carico]

sarcasm
One entry found for sarcasm.


Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
synonym see WIT


I can see why Arminians wander off topic. They have no defense of their position. So since Arminians argue like atheists, then you are proving my OP right. :wink:

[Carico]

I still don't see a reply to my scriptural verses provided in post 96? No insults -- just the word of God to bolster my position. If you're going to come on here so hot & heavy against Arminians, with all due respect at least support your view with scripture?

I can see being a Calvinist if one relies on the maybe half dozen or so passages that might support Calvins view -- however, it is only because those passages are ambiguous and generally misunderstood that anyone would go against Holy Scripture in the way Calvin did. Take Romans 9 probably the most misunderstood chapter in the NT. I could see how a novice would misunderstand that verse.

I agree -- salvation of our souls is no laughing matter. Thus, open your ears and soften your heart & allow yourself to consider these tenants of mine, which I believe are irrefutably supported by the Bible:

1) only through submitting to God can man overcome his depravity
2) Grace is a free gift available to all -- the elect are those who are willing to recieve it and who become part of Christs body (which is comprised of all believers)
3) God does indeed give man a choice -- submit to Him or die in our sins
4) after we "willingly" submit to God He gives us faith in different apportions and to be used in different ways.
5) God elected Christ foremost -- and those in the body of Christ
6) God wants all to be saved -- however, all will not be saved

Remember -- Calvin's view of immutibility and sovereignty was drawn from Augustine -- who in turn took it from the Greek philosopher Plato (the ultimate humanist). Plato predated Christianity by well over 300 years & likely had little or no contact with Judaic civilization. Therefore, to buy into Calvin is to necessarily buy into the humanist philosophy of Plato. Not that the Greeks weren't great philosophers in their own right -- however, to use them to form presumptions about God was the fatal flaw of both Calvin and Augustine. That view permeated into all of their notions of God and impacted how they interpretted Scripture.

I try to interpret Scripture without any such preconcieved notions -- holding to sola scriptura in its purest sense. Therefore, again please respond to my post 96. As God said in Isaiah "let's reason together."

AW

1) only through submitting to God can man overcome his depravity
2) Grace is a free gift available to all -- the elect are those who are willing to recieve it and who become part of Christs body (which is comprised of all believers)
3) God does indeed give man a choice -- submit to Him or die in our sins
4) after we "willingly" submit to God He gives us faith in different apportions and to be used in different ways.
5) God elected Christ foremost -- and those in the body of Christ
6) God wants all to be saved -- however, all will not be saved

The above statements aren't quotes from the bible. They are your words. So you need to quote verses as written instead of using your own paraphrases. That's called your interpretation rather than the word of God.

Submit or die. Where's the choice in that? :lolo: Even most atheists know that isn't a free choice. If someone heals you of blindness, how much of a decision does it take for your ability to see? :huh: None. So why do Arminians persist in giving themselves credit for the work of God in them?:shocked: That' called pride that doesn't come from the Spirit so it's a false teaching. Sorry. :wink:

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written. And since the words are so simple that even a child can understand them, then the bible is easy to understand. So divisions don't come from different interpretations, they come between those who believe the bible and those who don't as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:9. But since you interpret the bible instead of believing it as written, then I can see why you don't provide quotes, but instead, your own words. Sorry, your own words aren't the word of God. So only provide the word of God or your arguments aren't valid.:smile:

And it isn't just a few verses in the NT that we believe, God's soveign choice and soveriegn will are all over the old and new testaments. Proverbs 16:9, "Ih his heart, a man plans his course. But the Lord determines his steps." The bible also tells us that God;

1) makes us strong
2) Hardens hearts
3) Saves his chosen
4) Raises up even the anti-Christ
5) Even sends us delusions
6) Keeps us from temptation
7) Delivers us from evil
8) Takes away our sins
9) creates or destroys us
10) Gives us spiritual gifts
11) Gives us wisdom
12) Keeps us safe
13) Gives us discernment
14) Gives us faith
15) Elects his chosen
16) Creates some for noble purposes and others for common use
17) Prepares some for destruction and others for redemption

So what's left for humans to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So Calvinism is biblical, Arminianism is not. :wink:

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn't think a secular humanist would survive boot camp.

I just learned I was, it's quite a new thing to find out. All these 3 years I've thought of myself as a Christian and it turns out that I'm really a secular humanist. Imangine the shock I'm in now. :shocked:

Unfortunately, the only prize that secular humanists will receive are earthly rewards, not heavenly rewards which the bible tells us all over the place.

It seems Carico doesn't understand this strange new concept known as a "joke". :blush:

Secular humanists aren't Christians which is why they use the term "secular".

I think I know who I am alot better then you do.

So you need to look up that word in the dictionary to understand why. But if you're proud of being secular instead of Christian, then I'm afraid your pride will only last a short time.

Again I see that you don't understand this strange new concept known as a 'joke'. Perhaps you might want to use that dictionary to look up that term and while you're at it, go to ebay and see about putting a bid in for a sense of humor.

Sorry. But at least one Arminian is honest enough to admit that he's a secular humanist. So I'll give you that.

:duh:

You might want to turn in that attitude of yours and replace it with a sense of humor. What I said is known as a joke, IE I think you are a jerk who is the exact model that Christ told us to avoid as such I am making fun of your absurd reasoning.

Crystal

[lilpixieofterror]

I can see why Arminians wander off topic. They have no defense of their position. So since Arminians argue like atheists, then you are proving my OP right. :wink:

Funny, I've seen plenty of Calvanist make fun of people who are being stupid. :blush: Does that mean they are atheist too?

[Cowthulu]

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written.

:twitch: :huh:

[Bill the Cat]

So do you believe or interpret Jesus' words in Matt 11:28-30?

[Carico]

:twitch: :huh:

Do you knowthe difference between the words in the bible and other people's interpretations of them? If not, then that's your first step. Only then will you be ready ti discuss scripture.

[Carico]

So do you believe or interpret Jesus' words in Matt 11:28-30?


Yes asbolutely. And they prove that Jesus is who gives us rest, not our own free will. And if, by our own free will we can stop sinning, then why would we need Jesus for rest? We wouldn't. :wink: And who leads us to seek his rest? "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." So sorry, but the bible doesn't teach free will anywhere. It teaches all about God's power, not our own. :wink:

[Philosophickle]

What do you think about this verse, Carico?

Acts 7:51 You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

[Cowthulu]

Do you knowthe difference between the words in the bible and other people's interpretations of them? If not, then that's your first step. Only then will you be ready ti discuss scripture.


42but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.

Which ventrical do you keep God's love in? I keep it in my left.

[Littlejoe9763]

Yes asbolutely. And they prove that Jesus is who gives us rest, not our own free will. And if, by our own free will we can stop sinning, then why would we need Jesus for rest? We wouldn't. :wink: And who leads us to seek his rest? "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." So sorry, but the bible doesn't teach free will anywhere. It teaches all about God's power, not our own. :wink:


You seem to be saying by this that if we sin, we sin because God makes us. If we don't sin it's again because God does not make us? Am I understanding you correctly? Because, all of 1 John seems to disagree with this. As well as the verse quoted by Arminius Wesley in Deut 30:19. Where we are instructed to choose.

p.s. you still have not answered A_W's post on page 6. Post #96. It's easy to do. Go to the top of the page and look on the right side (under the dove and earth). Click on "6", and scroll down to #96 and click on the quote.:wink:

LJ

[Bill the Cat]

Yes asbolutely. And they prove that Jesus is who gives us rest, not our own free will.

It also proves that the offer is universal. The same ALL is used above in the previous verse where the Father gave Jesus ALL things, so He offers to ALL who are weary.

And if, by our own free will we can stop sinning,

We can't and no one says we can (except maybe Joyce Meyer). The red herring has no evidentiary support here.

then why would we need Jesus for rest? We wouldn't. :wink: And who leads us to seek his rest?

John 12:32
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."


"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." So sorry, but the bible doesn't teach free will anywhere. It teaches all about God's power, not our own. :wink:

So from your verse and mine, the Father draws all men through the drawing of Christ. So are all men saved because they are all drawn?

[semmie]

Do you knowthe difference between the words in the bible and other people's interpretations of them? If not, then that's your first step. Only then will you be ready ti discuss scripture.

:stop:

wait right there!

you've already used this line, little missy! and as i recall, you have still not responded to the question, even after the question was bumped for your convenience! spin a new coin phrase or be willing to respond to those who ask an honest question of you!

what i've learned here is that you really don't intend to teach anyone the difference between "the words in the bible" and "other peoples' interpretations of them." what you intend to do here is simply imply that YOU are speaking "the words in the bible" and therefore, anyone who disagrees with you is just "other peoples' interpretations."

and that doesn't fly. so i ask you a third time: what makes your words "truth" according to scripture and not just another "peoples' interpretation?"

seriously. it's no wonder you have such a low opinion of arminians! you seem to think we're all brain-dead fools who'll just be bullied into a corner by your claim of authority on all things theological. maybe that's the kind of arminian you were before you were soooooo enlightened. of course, maybe you were just bullied into a corner by some other calvy. :shrug:

or maybe you fell in love with a calvy. eh? :poke:

never...i say...never fall in love with a calvy...:no:...

.....unless he has a motorcycle.

sorry. end rant. but do, seriously...answer the question, or stop using this line.

[Xavier]

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written.

She naturally can't use her own tainted understanding to try and read the Bible that would run counter to her theology... Just like any notion of conversion would as well...

AMan's right... Voices of the past are coming back.

[Xavier]

I can see why Arminians wander off topic.

Really? Cause I don't really think you are that aware...

They have no defense of their position.

Looks like I was right... :woohoo:

So since Arminians argue like atheists, then you are proving my OP right. :wink:

So since Calvinists argue like 8th graders, then you are proving your OP wrong. :wink:

[semmie]

well, since i'm not arguing at all (just gracefully observing :angel: ), then i can't possibly be wrong. therefore, i'm right.

i win.

:smug:

[Cowthulu]

well, since i'm not arguing at all (just gracefully observing :angel: ), then i can't possibly be wrong. therefore, i'm right.

i win.

:smug:

Sorry Semmie, I already won back in post #93. :rasberry:

[Littlejoe9763]

According to this post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2013651&postcount=22)...she is gone for good. We'll just have to wait and see I guess whether she answers any of the latest questions to her.

LJ

[semmie]

Sorry Semmie, I already won back in post #93. :rasberry:

do you know the difference between the truth and peoples' interpretations of it??? that's your first step. you may think you've already won, but that's simply your own interpretation! i have clearly shown that i'm the winner here.

[Xavier]

According to this post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2013651&postcount=22)...she is gone for good. We'll just have to wait and see I guess whether she answers any of the latest questions to her.

LJ

The irony of that parting post is extreme... I didn't really think anyone could possibly be *that* detached from reality.

[Xavier]

Sorry Semmie, I already won back in post #93. :rasberry:

For the record, this is a Xavier win... Post #72.

[Cowthulu]

do you know the difference between the truth and peoples' interpretations of it??? that's your first step. you may think you've already won, but that's simply your own interpretation! i have clearly shown that i'm the winner here.

For the record, this is a Xavier win... Post #73.

Rats!!!

[Raphael]

In fairness what is generally referred to as hyper-Calvinism was truly John Calvin's view. Much of the TULIP doctrine commonly associated with Calvin didn't differ much from the ideas of earlier reformers. However, Calvin differed in the key aspect that he actually believed God tempted man to sin (in other words He destined to damnation). Have you ever read calvin's Institiutes of the Christian Religion.
Secondly Calvinism has little problem with people being destined to damnation. Afterall if God predestines the elect to be saved, then those who are not of the elect are predestined for damnation.
We use Acts 9:10-24 as justification for this beleif.

Here he departed from Augustine (who many early reformers followed) who felt God destined to glory but left the rest to their free will. Augustine attempted to mesh his preconceived notions of immutibility and divine sovereignty wrought from Platonic philosophy with Scripture -- Calvin stated what he felt was obvious -- if one is not destined to glory they are destined to damnation by default (although He went farther and blamed God for sin -- directly contravening James).Can you site your source on Calvin for that.
Granted if Calvin did say it, then I would consider him to be wrong (as that does not line up with 5 point Calvinism).

We Calvinists do beleive that those who are predestined are the elect, and therefore those who are not predestined to be part of the elect are effectively damned. We do not blame God for this as this comes into our doctrine of Free Agency (which at the end of the day is pretty much like your doctrine of free will).

Both of these theologies have been rejected by the larger protestant movement -- and in fact those who held them eventually became known as radical protestants. Take the puritans for example -- who yes burned those they felt were witches at the stake -- they were hyper-Calvinists.It really wasn't all that many...and if you haven't already you should read JP's and Glenn Miller's comments on the issue.
I haven't read up much on the theology of the puritans, so I won't comment further.

It's important to note that Calvin himself was somewhat of an egotist.He may have been....all that means is he was human and :shocked: he had character flaws. I've heard way worse comments about Paul.

Besides nowdays there is an attitude that anyone who says "I beleive my way is right and your is wrong" is considered an egoist.

You beleive that Arminian theology is correct and Calvinism is plain wrong....does that make you an egoist? (didn't think so)

His dogma included attempts to create a new Papacy with of course him as Pope (in Geneva),Bunk! Was Calvin establishing a new Church model? Well yeah, the only other model was the RCC which Calvin plainly felt was wrong, as did those around him. Did he try get passed off as a new Pope? No!
You might as well accuse John Wesley of papal aspirations when he was setting up methody. (and I'm sure you would agree that would be absurd)
having detractors executed,
The closest you can come to that is Servetus. Servetus was a unitarian heretic. He had already been tried in abstentia for the Spanish inquisition. Calvin had made it clear to Servetus during their correspondence, that he would tried as a heretic if he came to Geneva.
Servetus came to Geneva, was tried as a heretic and executed. (afterall what was the punishment at the time for heresy? death)
Thus arguement from outrage.
Was Calvin right in persuing the death penalty....I don't know, and I will not defend him as to whether or not he was right.
Personally, I would say not, but you must remember that at the time Heresy was punishable by death.
and ordering excommunication for those who disagreed with him (differing little from the RCC Martin Luther rebelled from).And your problem with that is? It is Biblical.

I can see why Arminians wander off topic. They have no defense of their position. So since Arminians argue like atheists, then you are proving my OP right. :wink:When will you remember that I am a CALVINIST!
And you haven't bothered to respond to a number of points that have been made here.
And you have yet to retract your comment about John Wesley.
The above statements aren't quotes from the bible. They are your words. So you need to quote verses as written instead of using your own paraphrases. That's called your interpretation rather than the word of God.You have yet to deal with the verses that give some trouble to us Calvinists. the ones like Paul stating people have left the faith...

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written. And since the words are so simple that even a child can understand them, then the bible is easy to understand.Bunk! Everyone interprets scripture. Heck, if you're reading it from an english translation you're interpreting an interpreted version.

Tell me, how would a child interpret this:
This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20, ESV)

So divisions don't come from different interpretations, they come between those who believe the bible and those who don't as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:9. But since you interpret the bible instead of believing it as written, then I can see why you don't provide quotes, but instead, your own words. Sorry, your own words aren't the word of God. So only provide the word of God or your arguments aren't valid.:smile: people have provided scripture rebuttals to you, you have ignored them

Do you knowthe difference between the words in the bible and other people's interpretations of them? If not, then that's your first step. Only then will you be ready ti discuss scripture.Please take your own advice.

[lilpixieofterror]

Awww, I don't get a prize? :frown:

[A-Man]

Awww, I don't get a prize? :frown:

Nope. A :hug: will have to do for now.

[Timothy Leary]

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written.

OK. Please explain to me in depth this part of the bible. Is it one sentence, as some believe, or 2 sentences? Also, please cover in depth the very first word.

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים

[Sparko]

The real irony is that carico's position, hypercalvinism, is itself a heresy, putting herself outside of orthodoxy, the very claim she is making against Arminians.

And her leaving because of "personal attacks" after she started a thread like this is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

[Xavier]

Thread got moved... crap.

Not even a notice... :tsk:

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

The real irony is that carico's position, hypercalvinism, is itself a heresy, putting herself outside of orthodoxy, the very claim she is making against Arminians.

And her leaving because of "personal attacks" after she started a thread like this is the ultimate in hypocrisy.


Amen

[Raphael]

The real irony is that carico's position, hypercalvinism, is itself a heresy, putting herself outside of orthodoxy, the very claim she is making against Arminians.when I commented that some of her staements were of hyper-calvinism and heresy, she decided I was arminian.

Apparantly if you don't agree 100% with what she thinks is calvinism (which as stated is hyper-calvinism) apparantly it make you an Arminian.

I also gather she doesn't have a clue what molinism would be. (considering she didn't have a clue about other soteriology

And her leaving because of "personal attacks" after she started a thread like this is the ultimate in hypocrisy.Yup.

[Sparko]

Thread got moved... crap.

Not even a notice... :tsk:

um unless you knew the thread was moved you wouldn't be able to read the notice, and once you did, what good would a notice be?

[Timothy Leary]

Thread got moved... crap.

Not even a notice... :tsk:
wah.

[Timothy Leary]

I do hope she responds to my latest question to her.

[Xavier]

um unless you knew the thread was moved you wouldn't be able to read the notice, and once you did, what good would a notice be?

Because I come to threads from the thread notices? :demure:

[Timothy Leary]

If she doesn't answer my question I'll explain what I was talking about on Friday.
(Remind me in case I forget)

[Yankee_Doodle]

1) only through submitting to God can man overcome his depravity
2) Grace is a free gift available to all -- the elect are those who are willing to recieve it and who become part of Christs body (which is comprised of all believers)
3) God does indeed give man a choice -- submit to Him or die in our sins
4) after we "willingly" submit to God He gives us faith in different apportions and to be used in different ways.
5) God elected Christ foremost -- and those in the body of Christ
6) God wants all to be saved -- however, all will not be saved

The above statements aren't quotes from the bible. They are your words. So you need to quote verses as written instead of using your own paraphrases. That's called your interpretation rather than the word of God.

Submit or die. Where's the choice in that? :lolo: Even most atheists know that isn't a free choice. If someone heals you of blindness, how much of a decision does it take for your ability to see? :huh: None. So why do Arminians persist in giving themselves credit for the work of God in them?:shocked: That' called pride that doesn't come from the Spirit so it's a false teaching. Sorry. :wink:

I don't interpret scripture, I simply believe it as written. And since the words are so simple that even a child can understand them, then the bible is easy to understand. So divisions don't come from different interpretations, they come between those who believe the bible and those who don't as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:9. But since you interpret the bible instead of believing it as written, then I can see why you don't provide quotes, but instead, your own words. Sorry, your own words aren't the word of God. So only provide the word of God or your arguments aren't valid.:smile:

And it isn't just a few verses in the NT that we believe, God's soveign choice and soveriegn will are all over the old and new testaments. Proverbs 16:9, "Ih his heart, a man plans his course. But the Lord determines his steps." The bible also tells us that God;

1) makes us strong
2) Hardens hearts
3) Saves his chosen
4) Raises up even the anti-Christ
5) Even sends us delusions
6) Keeps us from temptation
7) Delivers us from evil
8) Takes away our sins
9) creates or destroys us
10) Gives us spiritual gifts
11) Gives us wisdom
12) Keeps us safe
13) Gives us discernment
14) Gives us faith
15) Elects his chosen
16) Creates some for noble purposes and others for common use
17) Prepares some for destruction and others for redemption

So what's left for humans to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So Calvinism is biblical, Arminianism is not. :wink:

Can you explain how and why God hardens heats? Can you explain the election process. Finally, the choice between life and death isn't as clear cut as you make it seem -- since most choose death.

However, why don't you start with why God hardens hearts (and provide scriptural support for your assertions). Then tell me why you think God elects some to the exclusion of others (again -- Biblical support would be much appreciated).

And by the way -- you ignored my other response to you filled with Scriptural verses?? By the way Carico -- I think it was the way you opened with this post that riled everyone up. I think we should all take it down it a notch & discuss this topic reasonably (like the Christian grown ups I know we all are). I'll be honest -- I haven't met a Calvinist yet who was able to successfully rebut the logic of Arminianism. If you want to debate this we have a structured debate methodology here at Tweb -- I'll be glad to take on this topic in a civil manner -- which of course applies both ways (even though I admit its sort of boring -- after all I don't think this is something we should have heated arguments about). We're all guilty of heated rhetoric on these boards -- but I think a structured debate on this topic is called for since this topic is debated so frequently here on Tweb?

[Yankee_Doodle]

According to this post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2013651&postcount=22)...she is gone for good. We'll just have to wait and see I guess whether she answers any of the latest questions to her.

LJ

that's funny -- she complained about no one providing scriptural support for Arminian doctrine -- when I did exactly that her response was to reply with a bunch of non-scriptural assertions and anger filled rhetoric? Oh well??

[Yankee_Doodle]

Have you ever read calvin's Institiutes of the Christian Religion.
Secondly Calvinism has little problem with people being destined to damnation. Afterall if God predestines the elect to be saved, then those who are not of the elect are predestined for damnation.
We use Acts 9:10-24 as justification for this beleif.

Indeed God did choose Paul for special work -- but that verse has no bearing on election generally.

Can you site your source on Calvin for that.
Granted if Calvin did say it, then I would consider him to be wrong (as that does not line up with 5 point Calvinism).

the wikipedia reference for John Calvin -- go all the way down and click the link for his book on secret providence (it comes up in a pretty good format & allows you to download a pdf file)

We Calvinists do beleive that those who are predestined are the elect, and therefore those who are not predestined to be part of the elect are effectively damned. We do not blame God for this as this comes into our doctrine of Free Agency (which at the end of the day is pretty much like your doctrine of free will).

However, consider verses like Deuteronomy 30:19 or Isaiah 1:19, or Matt chap 11. These reveal that indeed God gives us a choice. God does not now and has not ever elected individually. He elects groups -- the descendants of Jacob, the children of the promise, etc.

He may have been....all that means is he was human and :shocked: he had character flaws. I've heard way worse comments about Paul.

fair point


Bunk! Was Calvin establishing a new Church model? Well yeah, the only other model was the RCC which Calvin plainly felt was wrong, as did those around him. Did he try get passed off as a new Pope? No!

that's not correct -- Calvin was actually exiled from Geneva for a time because of his hunger for power.

You might as well accuse John Wesley of papal aspirations when he was setting up methody. (and I'm sure you would agree that would be absurd)

Wesley never wanted to leave the Anglican church (he felt Apostolic succession was important). Thus I would equate Calvin with Wesley in this regard.

The closest you can come to that is Servetus. Servetus was a unitarian heretic. He had already been tried in abstentia for the Spanish inquisition. Calvin had made it clear to Servetus during their correspondence, that he would tried as a heretic if he came to Geneva.
Servetus came to Geneva, was tried as a heretic and executed. (afterall what was the punishment at the time for heresy? death)

actually servetus was one of many examples. There are another two famous cases (whose names escape me right now) but Calvin did make a practice out of punishing or executing detractors -- Wesley on the other hand wrote a famous sermon against bigotry and was all about Christian love & brotherhood. Now -- none of this proves Wesley right & Calvin wrong (I depart from Wesley in some areas -- but not as aggressively as I depart from Calvin).


Thus arguement from outrage.
Was Calvin right in persuing the death penalty....I don't know, and I will not defend him as to whether or not he was right.
Personally, I would say not, but you must remember that at the time Heresy was punishable by death.

it should be noted only the Romanists and Calvinists ever used the death penalty.


When will you remember that I am a CALVINIST!
And you haven't bothered to respond to a number of points that have been made here.
And you have yet to retract your comment about John Wesley.
You have yet to deal with the verses that give some trouble to us Calvinists. the ones like Paul stating people have left the faith...

I'm not sure what your talking about (maybe I missed a post of your -- if I did apologies, I'll look for it)?

Bunk! Everyone interprets scripture. Heck, if you're reading it from an english translation you're interpreting an interpreted version.

Indeed -- but with respect Calvin interpretted about as wrong as it can possibly be interpretted.

Tell me, how would a child interpret this:
This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20, ESV)

Paul was talking about people he had kicked out of the church -- not an act of God.

people have provided scripture rebuttals to you, you have ignored them

Please take your own advice.

dued I have a job -- I can't sit on Tweb all day long? In fact I just signed on about an hour ago??? I'll look for those rebuttals.

Okay -- I just looked & I only posted one post of any substance which is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2013061&postcount=96) and no-one replied to it??? What's up with that?

[Raphael]

Arminius_Wesley, my apologies, but you appear to have missed that from my comment of "When will you remember that I am a CALVINIST!" onwards, I was responding to Carico.

I should have made it clearer.

I'll respond to your other comments later as I too am at work.

Once again my apologies for the lack of clarity.

[Sparko]

Unless you are Molinists you are all heretical scum, destined to have to lick the mud off my boots in the afterlife.

It's true. :yes:

Moley! Moley! Moley!

[Raphael]

So it's true what they say about molinists, they blunder about in the dark short-sightedly

[Littlejoe9763]

that's funny -- she complained about no one providing scriptural support for Arminian doctrine -- when I did exactly that her response was to reply with a bunch of non-scriptural assertions and anger filled rhetoric? Oh well??

:lol: I know! I even pointed it out to her in her ranting thread! She came up with some lame excuse about so many of us were "harrassing" her that she must have missed it...or some such.

LJ

[Sparko]

I think its funny that one of the digs some calvinists toss out at Arminians is that Arminians are somehow being egotistical by saying they have a say-so in their salvation, when in fact hypercalvinism, like Carico's turns them into egomaniacs that think only THEY are good enough be be saved and the rest of us peons are gutter trash they can mock and ridicule. ...She IS what she claims to hate.

:irony:

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

I think its funny that one of the digs some calvinists toss out at Arminians is that Arminians are somehow being egotistical by saying they have a say-so in their salvation,

I'm glad I fall into the group of some that don't

when in fact hypercalvinism, like Carico's turns them into egomaniacs that think only THEY are good enough be be saved and the rest of us peons are gutter trash they can mock and ridicule. ...She IS what she claims to hate.


I don't think she is somehow a calvinist anything. More like just hyper. (this is a joke, okay!)

[Raphael]

I now have time to reply....
Indeed God did choose Paul for special work -- but that verse has no bearing on election generally. The logic is that if God has predestined those who are elect for glory, then those not predestined for glory are predestined for damnation.

the wikipedia reference for John Calvin -- go all the way down and click the link for his book on secret providence (it comes up in a pretty good format & allows you to download a pdf file)Will do.

However, consider verses like Deuteronomy 30:19 or Isaiah 1:19, or Matt chap 11. These reveal that indeed God gives us a choice. God does not now and has not ever elected individually. He elects groups -- the descendants of Jacob, the children of the promise, etc. We believe that the election is individual.

fair point:wink:

that's not correct -- Calvin was actually exiled from Geneva for a time because of his hunger for power.True....I wonder why they invited him back though.

Wesley never wanted to leave the Anglican church (he felt Apostolic succession was important). Thus I would equate Calvin with Wesley in this regard.:huh: Are you perhaps meaning that you wouldn't equate Calvin with Wesley?
If so, point taken.

actually servetus was one of many examples. There are another two famous cases (whose names escape me right now) but Calvin did make a practice out of punishing or executing detractors -- Wesley on the other hand wrote a famous sermon against bigotry and was all about Christian love & brotherhood. Now -- none of this proves Wesley right & Calvin wrong (I depart from Wesley in some areas -- but not as aggressively as I depart from Calvin).

it should be noted only the Romanists and Calvinists ever used the death penalty.
The only other famous case I know of was Jacques Gruet. I'm not sure who is to blame with that one.
He did have 23 people burned as witches. But we must take note of the fact that witches were noted for their flammability at that time. (joke)

Also there pretty much was really only the RCC and the Calvinists at the time.

The rest of your post was actually responding to comments that I directed to Carico.

[Raphael]

too late to add this as an edit:
Arminius_Wesley, would you like to take our discussion to a new thread in a different section (assuming you have the time to discuss further)

It's just we seem to be having a reasonable discussion of legitimate stuff in a weird thread.

[Yankee_Doodle]

too late to add this as an edit:
Arminius_Wesley, would you like to take our discussion to a new thread in a different section (assuming you have the time to discuss further)

It's just we seem to be having a reasonable discussion of legitimate stuff in a weird thread.

that sounds good. I started a thread for it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=99391).

[Carico]

According to this post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2013651&postcount=22)...she is gone for good. We'll just have to wait and see I guess whether she answers any of the latest questions to her.

LJ

Since I left, I've been getting E-mail notices whenever anyone responds to my thread even though I changed my profile.

I left because the posts of Arminians contained too many personal attacks and no scripture. So it's pointless staying here since the Arminians on this forum don't seem to realizew that attacking people and gossping about them isn't going to change one word in the bible. So it's a waste of time. So people either stand or fall on scripture alone, not in who can say the most childish and hurtful things. So before I try to change my profile again, I'll leave with one last post.

The following should answer everyone's questions. And if it doesn,t; then they need to ask God for the faith to believe the bible instead of trying to find ways to give man the credit for God's work in them. Here's what God does:

1) He creates us
2) He chooses who will have eternal life and who will have eternal death
3) He saves us
4) He keeps us from harm
5) He delivers us from evil
6) He hardens hearts
7) He changes hearts
8) He moves us to follow his decrees and obey his laws
9) He opens the eyes of the blind
10) He gives us faith
11) He controls Satan
12) He renews our minds
13) He leads us into all truth
14) He makes us a new creation
15) He raises up the anti-Christ
16) He sends us powerful delusions
17) He makes us strong
18) He works in us to Act and will us according to his purposes
19) He gives us spiritual gifts like humility, patience, self control, knowledge, wisom, etc.
20) He determines our steps
21) He destroys the wicked
22) he sends armies against his enemies
23) He strikes down his enemies


And everything else in the world. So what is there left for man to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So Calvinism is biblical and Arminianism is a deception from Satan, which one should know because it comes from the sin of pride which is from the devil.

[themuzicman]

Since I left, I've been getting E-mail notices whenever anyone responds to my thread even though I changed my profile.

I left because the posts of Arminians contained too many personal attacks and no scripture. So it's pointless staying here since the Arminians on this forum don't seem to realizew that attacking people and gossping about them isn't going to change one word in the bible. So it's a waste of time. So people either stand or fall on scripture alone, not in who can say the most childish and hurtful things. So before I try to change my profile again, I'll leave with one last post.

The following should answer everyone's questions. And if it doesn,t; then they need to ask God for the faith to believe the bible instead of trying to find ways to give man the credit for God's work in them. Here's what God does:

1) He creates us
2) He chooses who will have eternal life and who will have eternal death
3) He saves us
4) He keeps us from harm
5) He delivers us from evil
6) He hardens hearts
7) He changes hearts
8) He moves us to follow his decrees and obey his laws
9) He opens the eyes of the blind
10) He gives us faith
11) He controls Satan
12) He renews our minds
13) He leads us into all truth
14) He makes us a new creation
15) He raises up the anti-Christ
16) He sends us powerful delusions
17) He makes us strong
18) He works in us to Act and will us according to his purposes
19) He gives us spiritual gifts like humility, patience, self control, knowledge, wisom, etc.
20) He determines our steps
21) He destroys the wicked
22) he sends armies against his enemies
23) He strikes down his enemies


And everything else in the world. So what is there left for man to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So Calvinism is biblical and Arminianism is a deception from Satan, which one should know because it comes from the sin of pride which is from the devil.

I notice a striking lack of scripture in this post for someone who complains that Arminians don't post scripture.

Michael

[Xavier]

"He" does everything (in your eyes) then gives us a Bible with commandments that we DO NOT follow... Explain this.

[Littlejoe9763]

Since I left, I've been getting E-mail notices whenever anyone responds to my thread even though I changed my profile.

I left because the posts of Arminians contained too many personal attacks and no scripture. So it's pointless staying here since the Arminians on this forum don't seem to realizew that attacking people and gossping about them isn't going to change one word in the bible. So it's a waste of time. So people either stand or fall on scripture alone, not in who can say the most childish and hurtful things. So before I try to change my profile again, I'll leave with one last post.

The following should answer everyone's questions. And if it doesn,t; then they need to ask God for the faith to believe the bible instead of trying to find ways to give man the credit for God's work in them. Here's what God does:

1) He creates us
2) He chooses who will have eternal life and who will have eternal death
3) He saves us
4) He keeps us from harm
5) He delivers us from evil
6) He hardens hearts
7) He changes hearts
8) He moves us to follow his decrees and obey his laws
9) He opens the eyes of the blind
10) He gives us faith
11) He controls Satan
12) He renews our minds
13) He leads us into all truth
14) He makes us a new creation
15) He raises up the anti-Christ
16) He sends us powerful delusions
17) He makes us strong
18) He works in us to Act and will us according to his purposes
19) He gives us spiritual gifts like humility, patience, self control, knowledge, wisom, etc.
20) He determines our steps
21) He destroys the wicked
22) he sends armies against his enemies
23) He strikes down his enemies


And everything else in the world. So what is there left for man to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So Calvinism is biblical and Arminianism is a deception from Satan, which one should know because it comes from the sin of pride which is from the devil.

Nothing??? How about:

1) Choose life - Deut 30:19
2) Choose to serve Him - Joshua 24:15
3) Choose to be willing and obedient - Is. 1:19
4) Choose to believe in Him - John 3:16
5) Choose to abide in HIm - John 6:56, 8:31, 15:4 etc.
6) Choose to live by faith - Gal. 3:11
7) Choose to bear one anothers burdens - Gal 6:18
8) Choose to seek things above - Col. 3:1-2
9) Choose to stay steadfast in prayer - Col. 4:2-3
10) Choose to stand firm in your faith - 2Thess. 2:15
11) Choose to endure for Him - 2 Tim. 2:12
12) Choose NOT to enter into apostasy - Heb. 6
13) Choose to put away all filthiness and wickedness and receive meekness - James 1:21
14) Choose to be doers of the Word and not just hearers only - James 1:22
15) Choose to make your election sure - 2 Peter 1:5-11
16) Choose to love one another - 1 John 3:7

These are just a few highlights! I am running out of time to give more. (Notice how I used scripture to back up my points?)

LJ

[Raphael]

Since I left, I've been getting E-mail notices whenever anyone responds to my thread even though I changed my profile. that would be because you need to unsubscribe from the thread.

I left because the posts of Arminians contained too many personal attacks and no scripture.Bunk! The Arminians did post scriptures, you chose to ignore them.
So it's pointless staying here since the Arminians on this forum don't seem to realizew that attacking people and gossping about them isn't going to change one word in the bible.:huh: I've been having a reasoned and polite discussion about soterology with the Arminians in the Theology 201 section. Name calling only in that discussion has happened only once and then it was done in jest.
Have you thought that the Arminians reactions were perhaps because in your OP you called them all godless heretics?
So it's a waste of time. So people either stand or fall on scripture alone, not in who can say the most childish and hurtful things.Then why didn't you answer the many who wrote detailed posts with scripture to back it up (Arminius_Wesley being one of them)

So before I try to change my profile again, I'll leave with one last post.It's not your profile, you need to unsubscribe from the thread.

The following should answer everyone's questions. And if it doesn,t; then they need to ask God for the faith to believe the bible instead of trying to find ways to give man the credit for God's work in them.Well lets have a look then

Here's what God does:

1) He creates usNot even in question.
2) He chooses who will have eternal life and who will have eternal death That is Calvinism, but where are your scripture verses to back up your statement. Also do you believe in eternal death, or punishment or obliteration?
3) He saves usNo debate there
4) He keeps us from harm define harm first
5) He delivers us from evilagain, no debate there.
6) He hardens heartsBut whose hearts? This is a topic of major debate. and cannot be discussed in a one line assertion.
7) He changes hearts see my above comment
8) He moves us to follow his decrees and obey his lawssee my above comment
9) He opens the eyes of the blindNo debate there
10) He gives us faithNo debate there.
11) He controls Satan And you've crossed the line into hyper-calvinism.
12) He renews our mindsNo debate there
13) He leads us into all truthno too sure what you mean exactly.
14) He makes us a new creation no debate there.
15) He raises up the anti-ChristEschatology is another debate entirely. Are you preterist? pre-mill? post-mill? dispensationalist? What scripture do you use to back up your position?
16) He sends us powerful delusionsScripture please. And you're heading towards hyper-calvinism again.
17) He makes us strongNo debate there.
18) He works in us to Act and will us according to his purposes I don't think there is any debate there.
19) He gives us spiritual gifts like humility, patience, self control, knowledge, wisom, etc. who even hinted that He didn't?
20) He determines our steps No debate there, but some scripture would be nice.
21) He destroys the wickedAgain no debate there.
22) he sends armies against his enemies no debate there.
23) He strikes down his enemies no debate there.

And everything else in the world. So what is there left for man to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing.cool, vacation time.
So Calvinism is biblical and Arminianism is a deception from Satan, which one should know because it comes from the sin of pride which is from the devil.Sorry, you missed me with the sharp turn at the end there.
You just gave a whole list of assertions, without one scripture and that is meant to prove that Calvinism is Biblical and Arminianism isn't :huh:
Some objections:
you don't appear to have the standard Calvinist POV, infact a large amount of what you've written previously is hyper-calvinistic.
you don't seem to have any idea what Arminians really believe.
you seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you is Arminian.
you make assertions without scriptural backing
you post random verses with no explanation

[Sparko]

Carico doesn't need scripture to back up her argument because in her theology scripture is useless, since God just zaps you and you automagically believe.

:kenny2:

[Timothy Leary]

Carico doesn't need scripture to back up her argument because in her theology scripture is useless, since God just zaps you and you automagically believe.

:kenny2:
It does happen that way for some people, more or less.
But to say that's how everyone comes to their faith would be loco.

[Pilgrim]

Since I left, I've been getting E-mail notices whenever anyone responds to my thread even though I changed my profile.

I left because the posts of Arminians contained too many personal attacks and no scripture. So it's pointless staying here since the Arminians on this forum don't seem to realizew that attacking people and gossping about them isn't going to change one word in the bible. So it's a waste of time. So people either stand or fall on scripture alone, not in who can say the most childish and hurtful things. So before I try to change my profile again, I'll leave with one last post.

The following should answer everyone's questions. And if it doesn,t; then they need to ask God for the faith to believe the bible instead of trying to find ways to give man the credit for God's work in them. Here's what God does:

1) He creates us
2) He chooses who will have eternal life and who will have eternal death
3) He saves us
4) He keeps us from harm
5) He delivers us from evil
6) He hardens hearts
7) He changes hearts
8) He moves us to follow his decrees and obey his laws
9) He opens the eyes of the blind
10) He gives us faith
11) He controls Satan
12) He renews our minds
13) He leads us into all truth
14) He makes us a new creation
15) He raises up the anti-Christ
16) He sends us powerful delusions
17) He makes us strong
18) He works in us to Act and will us according to his purposes
19) He gives us spiritual gifts like humility, patience, self control, knowledge, wisom, etc.
20) He determines our steps
21) He destroys the wicked
22) he sends armies against his enemies
23) He strikes down his enemies


And everything else in the world. So what is there left for man to do? Absolutely nothing. Not one thing. So Calvinism is biblical and Arminianism is a deception from Satan, which one should know because it comes from the sin of pride which is from the devil.

I thought you were leaving? Why are you still here posting in such a way as to create division among the brethren? As much as you complain about others you are doing pretty much the same. How is that log anyway?

[Littlejoe9763]

Obviously, just another Hit and Run by Carico.

LJ

[MaxVel]

My sympathies, Philo :smile:

I believe I have met the OP elsewhere on the Net, and she was just as incoherent there...

I put her on ignore in the end, as she continually posted scriptures as if that alone made an argument...

[djknight]

Calvinists worship an atheist? You're a moron.

[djknight]

No, Calvinists do not teach that (saving) faith comes from man. The Bible teaches that saving faith comes from God, that we can do not good (deeds done with love for God) apart from God. I'm a Calvinist.

[Longstreet]

Man, I had forgotten all about this thread. However did you find it?

No, Calvinists do not teach that (saving) faith comes from man. The Bible teaches that saving faith comes from God, that we can do not good (deeds done with love for God) apart from God. I'm a Calvinist.

Dude, you realize that the post to which you are responding was written entirely in jest, to poke fun at the "diatribe posing as argument" in the OP? I don't believe any of the things I wrote there.

And for the record, depending on my mood and the time of day, I might be a Calvinist, I might be Arminian, or I might be a Molinist (with a smattering of Open Theology thrown in for good measure).

[Eagle-eyeTerra]

For a second there I thought that Carico was back hehehe.