• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

  • Calvinist

  • Arminian

  • Somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism

  • Semi-Pelagian

  • Pelagian

  • Other

  • That's my buisness


Results are only viewable after voting.
Thanks RV, for the clearing up, and confusion that may have occurred. This is why I ask questions for clarity. I do not want to assume one's position.​
I would like to think that people are used to me by now...

Watch what happens; I've seen it time-and-time again. When the subject changes, and I give some good points in support of Calvinism; I'll be everyone's favorite again...

For instance; I will use my point about the Cross of Christ only bearing the Nailed Sins of Believers, to show the Atonement is Limited. When that happens, people will be happy. But for now, it kind of got swept under the rug...

I've never heard that as a point for Limited Atonement...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to think that people are used to me by now...

Watch what happens; I've seen it time-and-time again. When the subject changes, and I give some good points in support of Calvinism; I'll be everyone's favorite again...
We love you, brother.

Remember this is a forum, questions are asked, we support each other, we question each other and correct if needed. As long as it's done with love, right?
 
We love you, brother.

Remember this is a forum, questions are asked, we support each other, we question each other and correct if needed. As long as it's done with love, right?
Right. This is a good Forum...
 
I would like to think that people are used to me by now...

Watch what happens; I've seen it time-and-time again. When the subject changes, and I give some good points in support of Calvinism; I'll be everyone's favorite again...

For instance; I will use my point about the Cross of Christ only bearing the Nailed Sins of Believers, to show the Atonement is Limited. When that happens, people will be happy. But for now, it kind of got swept under the rug...

I've never heard that as a point for Limited Atonement...
We can lean on each other, when we have questions or concerns. I think it's okay to ask any question among brother, and we shouldn't be judgmental but be understanding that a brother has a question and seek help. If we can't do that here, then what's the point?​
 
I agree...

Tom also believes that Scripture has the power; he's a Provisionist. You and I believe that Scripture in the hand of the Spirit explains it. It's really Spiritually Understood...
Who is this "Tom"?

Just curious, not that it is any of my business. Civic, I know. BTW, is he on this site?
 
Understood, allow me to share something with you my brother.

The Controversy Over "Final Salvation Through Works"
For the last several years writers identified with the broader Reformed movement have proposed that Christians are saved initially by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone but finally through faith and works. There are two claims here: 1) salvation is in two stages and 2) the instruments in each stage differ. Second, some have alleged that these doctrines are the doctrines of the Reformed tradition. So we have exegetical, theological, historical, and practical questions: If one's present salvation is merely provisional, which is logically necessary if there are two stages, what is the basis of one's assurance? Of course assurance of faith or assurance of salvation is vitiated, and should these proposals stand, every Christian is, with Martin Luther, in a monastic cell in Eurfurt wondering if he will perform works of sufficient number and quality finally to enter heaven?

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith​

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

So, look when a sinners believes and trust in God who justifies the "ungodly". This justified sinners is declared right then perfectly righteous, because of Christ. This is a one-time act of declaration. We cannot add anything to it, because Christ fulfilled everything the Law required by his perfect law keeping. This is why Paul called it good news for sinners, even for a chief sinner like himself. This is we stand, on this solid rock, my brother. Christ "Finish it". By his wounds we are healed, by his chastisement we have peace with God. He was pierced for our transgressions, he bore our iniquities, he paid the price with his blood, whom God put forward as a propitiation. He became a curse for us, to free us from the curse of the Law. He is our redemption, salvation, justification, and sanctification 1 Cor. 1:30.

From this my brother flows our good works, fruits, because they are the effects of the cause. We praise, honor, and live to God out of gratitude, knowing that he saved us from sin, death, condemnation, and punishment. Because of Christ our penal substitutionary atonement. The Righteous for the unrighteous 1 Peter 3:18.​
"Gratitude" to me sounds like an insufficient idea of man.
For me it's about wanting to know him, to be close to him, to be Mary (the sister of Martha).
Know what you believe and why you believe it!

By Grace Alone through Faith Alone!

We must hear and read the Gospel everyday, the good news for the ungodly!
 
Excuse me Brother for not being Clear enough. Sometimes some things I say Appear to need rumination; IE a little time to soak in...

I'm saying my Point that "Only" the Sins of the Unconditional Elect are Nailed to the Cross; is a Doctrine, as opposed to a Verbatim Verse that says only 'our' Sins are Nailed to the Cross. Since the Bible doesn't say "only", for me to say only our Sins are Nailed to the Cross is a Teaching/Doctrine...
You use "teaching" in a strange way.
All NT doctrine is teaching.
All false doctrine is teaching.
Teaching doesn't indicate either the source or the veracity.
 
"Gratitude" to me sounds like an insufficient idea of man.
For me it's about wanting to know him, to be close to him, to be Mary the sister of Martha.
The question Eleanor is are we saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone (Phrase 1), then we are by Faith plus works (Final Justification) that saves? Is the Gospel an announcement of Good News for the ungodly? Or it a DIY project where I finish it myself? In Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him
 
:LOL:. Ok, and I agree completely with your last sentence there.

"As for Paul, I think what he is saying there is not by Apostolic authority. He is making a claim of opinion, that does not carry the weight of the word of God. He is making it plain that he is not speaking for God, there. If, as you say, he is making a statement that doesn't have to be received as a command from the Lord, then it lacks the authority of Scripture. I'm not saying it is completely without authority, as members of the body submit in some ways to the leaders, but the early church needed the apostles. The current church does not, though we do need able and gifted teachers. We have the Scriptures.
I'm thinking that, having received his doctrine personally from Christ (Gal 1:11-12) and having been to the "third" heaven, Paul knew the mind of Christ, and though he didn't have explicit instruction from Christ on the matter, his opinion does not equate to any other man's opinion.
 
I get why people are having a hard time with the things I say. They are hard sayings, right?

But these Christians will never leave Jesus Christ over a hard saying. The WCF says, the Doctrines of Men, as long as Scripture endorses it; is Good Doctrine...

That's a hard saying for some Sola Scripturists...
And in the context of the times of the WCF, the "doctrines of men" were the extra- and contra-Biblical doctrines of the RCC, some of which were appalling.
It was not an endorsement of men's doctrines.
 
Agreed. And there is a reason for that!

Where we think scripture is silent, it often is not. The fact we don't see something there doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, if God calls himself the creator, it may mean to us only certain things, but what God means by it is far beyond what we will ever in this life understand.

On top of that, all of it ties to all the rest of it. Therefore, the fact we don't see the tie of one passage to what he means by 'creator' doesn't mean that it isn't given in Scripture. It only means we don't see it.

BUT there are things we do suspect may be so, within scripture, where speculation is inevitable, but MUST ALWAYS be understood as only speculation, and even what 'possible' truth there is within the speculation is necessarily incompletely understood and incompletely expressed by the speculation.

I have a speculation that I love. I think the Revelation 21 New Jerusalem adorned as a bride, IS the Bride of Christ, and I have no end of reasons, from Scripture, to think so. And no matter what words I put to it, and even believe there is truth to it, my notions don't even begin to state the depth of the truth of it. So I have to say it is speculation, and not of itself at all, doctrine. There is only truth TO it. If it is enlightenment, and overwhelmingly eye-opening, it is only weakly so.
I think it is definitely figurative of the bride of Christ.
 
The question Eleanor is are we saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone (Phrase 1), then we are by Faith plus works (Final Justification) that saves? Is the Gospel an announcement of Good News for the ungodly? Or it a DIY project where I finish it myself? In Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him
Thanks!

In that context, it does not make "gratitude" the end all and be all.
 
I think it is definitely figurative of the bride of Christ.
I may have a mental/psychological block to understanding how the temporal can understand something figuratively to the eternal/spiritual. To me, that is backwards, as the spiritual is the 'more' real. (I know I didn't say that well, but at the moment I can't think how else to put that.) Even the places where Scripture says outright that something is figurative, I think it means it backwards from how we think. For example, when it says that the gate to the city is a pearl, I think "what do we know about 'pearl'? —maybe it is the real pearl, not these passing representations we draw out of oysters."

It is reasonable, however, to suppose a thing as figurative, in that we are unable to understand the 'flavor' of the thing being spoken of without the temporal reference.

But maybe I need another cup of coffee to help me wake up.
 
Sorry, please Forgive me..

Jesus fulfills Scripture as the Scapegoat who carries away Confessed Sins; Leviticus 16. Leviticus uses the word Confessed, so I use the word Confessed. When I use the word Confessed, it's not intended to teach an insufficient Atonement due to our having any unconfessed Sins. It's meant to convey the Sins of Confessed Believers. Acknowledging one thing, isn't necessarily a denial of another thing. If we Confess our Sins, means to Confess we are Sinners...

I don't think anyone Confessed every Sin they committed...
Of course I forgive you, brother. :)

Thank you for the clarification.

The reason why I started this conversation, is that Fullerism logically requires forgiveness to be available for every single person, which, in turn, requires a universal atonement. I knew that you like Fullerism, so I wanted to see if you recognised this, or if there were some cognitive dissonance.
 
Of course I forgive you, brother. :)

Thank you for the clarification.

The reason why I started this conversation, is that Fullerism logically requires forgiveness to be available for every single person, which, in turn, requires a universal atonement. I knew that you like Fullerism, so I wanted to see if you recognised this, or if there were some cognitive dissonance.
That's the aspect of Fullerism that I like. Only the Unconditional Elect are Atoned for, but all can be Atoned for. The Sufficiency and Efficiency of the Cross stuff...

I think at the end of the day, Calvinists agree with Sufficiency and Efficiency; but are afraid the Doctrine of Definite Atonement would get lost in the cracks of Sufficiency...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?
My mind even comes across to me as off the wall, sometimes. Just now I looked at the words in the https, "Are you arminian?" and I could hear Jimi Hendrix doing that signature guitar strum and singing, "...are you Arminian?....Well, I aaammmm."
 
Back
Top