Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins
#1. The guy is a 4 point calvinist. REad the article and see his deference toward Calvin. He is not the only calvinist around who rejects "limited atonement."

Then the guy is what is referred to as an Amyraldian, not a Calvinist. He may agree with 4 points of Calvinism, others may agree with 3 or 2 or 1, but that doesn't make them a Calvinist. A Calvinist holds to all 5 points.

#2. I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm trying to be part of the solution that topples calvinism from the stage of Christian History. I think it's bad theology.

You may have good intentions (even though I adamantly think you are wrong regarding Calvinism being bad theology), but the tone of your posts is very divisive. It is possible to argue a point without exagerating it to the point of distortion. What you are presenting is not Calvinism - it is an ugly spin on it that offends those of us who believe that the doctrine is actually beautiful.

1. T - Everyone's flippin' crazy and corrupt. 2. U - God's picks some for heaven and some for hell. 3. L - Then he died ONLY for the ones he picked. 4. I - Then he forced them on the busride to heaven. 5. P - And he ain't lettin' any of 'em off 'til they get there.
Xzins, this part is not constructive but inflamatory. In order to improve the level of discourse (cause you know some Calvinist is gonna see this and say you're flippin' crazy and corrupt for writing it), try to avoid such language in the future. It is divisive, and it is a distortion, and it doesn't become you or add anything to your argument.
It makes sense if he died for those he had some hope for. And since the c'vist scholar I quoted says Jesus died for all, then that only makes sense if EVERYONE has a fair and equal shot at a real, unprogrammed hope.
Sorry, but this statement doesn't make sense in light of God's omnipotence. God doesn't "have hope" for anyone. He KNOWS with CERTAINTY who will be saved. His atonement does not cover the sins of those who will not be saved, therefore it is limited to those who will be saved. Even YOU believe in limited atonement of some form unless you are a Universalist.

Please note that that is not directed at you personally. I've discussed with you in the past and find you an able combatant, one who knows her subject, and most importantly, I consider you a Christian.
I consider you a Christian as well, which is why I admonish you to up the level of discourse. I've called Calvinists out on their level of discourse before as well. We can debate till the cows come home, but we needn't make it so ugly that it is just an unfair representation of what the other person believes.
20 posted on 05/25/2002 9:21:19 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: DittoJed2; RnMomof7; Winston Churchill; drstevej
1. T - Everyone's flippin' crazy and corrupt. 2. U - God's picks some for heaven and some for hell. 3. L - Then he died ONLY for the ones he picked. 4. I - Then he forced them on the busride to heaven. 5. P - And he ain't lettin' any of 'em off 'til they get there. Xzins, this part is not constructive but inflamatory. In order to improve the level of discourse (cause you know some Calvinist is gonna see this and say you're flippin' crazy and corrupt for writing it), try to avoid such language in the future. It is divisive, and it is a distortion, and it doesn't become you or add anything to your argument.

drj, you are pinged for a "read only" with no comment requested/expected.

What I wrote is a caricature of your position....it combines both the substance and the implications in a concrete, easily absorbed manner. This is an argumentation style that is frequently used throughout FR to INCLUDE the religious threads. Sarcasm is a major method of caricature, as well. The advantage of it is that it communicates readily....PRIMARILY with those who ALREADY are on your own side.

There is NO WAY to convince an opponent of the validity of your position in an argument (Dale Carnegie.) That happens at a private level.

Therefore, I am hoping to affect your subconscious with propaganda, Wesley-Arminianism's supporters with condensed, agreed upon descritives, and lurkers/undecideds with encapsulated slogans that come fairly close to describing the reality of the ideas.

"But when I'm angry, I'm just shoutin' out taunts"...LOL.

27 posted on 05/25/2002 9:46:01 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: DittoJed2;xzins;rnmomof7
try to avoid such language in the future. It is divisive, and it is a distortion, and it doesn't become you or add anything to your argument.

amusing for its irony - Hey x & Armommy - you be sure and get a snootful of that "spiritual crack cocaine" today - me, Ive got a shovelful comin my way - snniiffffff.

29 posted on 05/26/2002 5:04:29 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson