Delmar's POD 10-16-09

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delmar

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
The glory of God is not divorced from righteousness, truth, character. The Calvinistic view impugns the character of God and His ways and is unbiblical. Defaulting to begging the question that an arbitary view is for the glory of God may work in-house (fellow Calvinists), but it does not stand up to objective scrutiny. It is the glory of God to provide salvation potentially to all men, not just some. In your view, the only difference between God and Satan is that God wants some to be damned, while Satan wants all to be damned?!

TULIP is false, period. God alone initiates and provides salvation in both our views. He alone gets all the glory. Receiving a free gift does not mean we earn it, provide it, etc. We cannot regenerate ourselves. God alone transforms us based on Christ's work, not our merit. His objective work is appropriated through the subjective condition of faith. Faith is not a work nor is it self-salvation. It is God's chosen requirement leading to salvation that is based on love, freedom, relationship, not determinism.
Click to expand...
Post of the day :first:
 
CabinetMaker

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
Yet, he has his own brand of L and P.
Click to expand...
So? All you are saying here is that you are less wrong than GR because he holds slightly different beliefs than you do. Do you think that he loves God and Jesus any less than you do? Do you think God and Jesus love GR any less than they love you?
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
CabinetMaker said:
So? All you are saying here is that you are less wrong than GR because he holds slightly different beliefs than you do. Do you think that he loves God and Jesus any less than you do? Do you think God and Jesus love GR any less than they love you?
Click to expand...

:kookoo:

Um, no, but I think it's hypocritical to rail against TULIP when you believe in a form of L and P yourself.
 
CabinetMaker

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
:kookoo:

Um, no, but I think it's hypocritical to rail against TULIP when you believe in a form of L and P yourself.
Click to expand...
Its not hypocritical. That GR believes in something that you think is a form of L and P in no way means the GR supports TULIP. I dare say that if you were to ask AMR if GR's beliefs about Land P were correct you would get a resounding no. Beliefs that are "similar to" are not synonymous with "identical to".
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
godrulz does, however, subscribe to a variation of "L" and "P".
Click to expand...

In your mind, perhaps. :mmph: The Calvinistic concepts of limited atonement (this is not the opposite of universalism, except perhaps in your mind) and perseverance of the saints (I reject POTS and OSAS) are flawed. I am the opposite of TULIP on every point (or I qualify it, even as I contradict the standard Calv. concepts).
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse said:
Now if only he actually believed it himself...
Click to expand...

How about some content to the jabs so I can clarify my positions publicly? As an Open Theist (fellow; former Arminian), I stand against Calvinism.

Here is an old thread about my opening post. The comparison on this point (some vs all damned) was not original to myself (Roger Olson concept), but it makes a valid point (unconditional election/double predestination is arbitrary and more like Satan on this point than the biblical revelation of an impartially loving God):

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52693

(read the first post from Olson paraphrased; it is insightful)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top