Posted on 07/25/2002 7:23:40 AM PDT by xzins
Down, but never beat. 8~)
Nah - actually I pinged him privately this am and let him know he was the topic of conversation
Rn, all things fairly considered......you owe me a HAPPY MEAL COUPON!!
Other than that, when Christmas rolls around remind me to buy you a the new edition of "Dictionary for Dyslexics." I happily await the day you make one of those hysterical "church newsletter" type errors. :0-)
Sorry, Rn, but marlowe wins this one. You asked HIM if he believes in FREE GRACE. He asked you to define what YOU mean. You sent him a sermon from Wesley. He asked you again for a summary of your belief. You then tell him that if he can't figure out what he believes then that's his problem.
Rn, that is worse than circular logic. That's circular obfuscation.
When YOU say free grace, what do YOU mean?
Maddening insanity. You have my sympathy. LOL.
Send me your address and I will send you the happy meal..You win I quit
Its enough to make you blow a fuse. How can anyone debate under such conditions? How hard is it to define something so that some kind of meaningful discussion can take place? i certainly am not going to admit that I believe in "free grace" unless the person who accuses me of believing it tells me what it means to them. Heck maybe I do believe in it. I'd just like to know what it is before I admit to it. Is that too hard?
Do I believe in "Free Grace?" Well, what is my choice? Expensive Grace? Discount Grace? Is Grace in jail, does she need to be released? Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
To quote Charlie Brown: AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
What we have here..... Failure to communicate.
Actually she accused me of believing in it as part and parcel to her accusing me of being an "Arminian." It was all part of her snide little "looks like a duck" debating technique.
I just wonder if anyone will claim I am a Calvinist because I believe in absolute eternal security... Quack Quack.
"Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasizes human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine than Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them." (New York, Charles Scribner's & Son, 1910, VIII 815 f).
Notice that "Free Grace" as defined by Schaff is a strictly Calvinistic idea. You see that is why it is important that we understand the terms before we debate them.
At any rate, I am not a Calvinist nor am I an Arminian. Both are right. Both are wrong. It is a perfectly legitimate position. It is my position. it is the position set forth in scripture.
LOL! Your yolks crack me up.
Which is?
Schaff's statement is meaningless!
Both positions cannot be right.
If man is responsible (which he is) then a choice has to be made.
What Schaff did not want to address was the Calvinistic error that this choice is not a work and thus, grace is still free
When it comes to the issue of Salvation the Arminian/Wesley view is the Biblical one.
It is either unconditional or conditional election, there are no other options.
Yes, there is an ignorance which no one needs be troubled over if he was deprived either of the opportunity or the capacity to learn. But there is an ignorance about one's own life that is equally tragic for the learned and for the simple, for both are bound by the same responsibility. This ignorance is called self-deceit. There is an ignorance that by degrees, as more and more is learned, gradually changes into knowledge. But there is only one thing that can remove that other ignorance which is self-deception. And to be ignorant of the fact that there is one thing and only one thing, and that only one thing is necessary, is still to be in self-deception.
The ignorant one may have been ignorant of much. He can increase his knowledge, and still there is much that he does not know. But if the self-deluded one speaks of quantity, and of variety, then he is still in self-deception, still deeply ensnared by and in the grip of multiplicity. The ignorant man can gradually acquire wisdom and knowledge, but the self-deluded one if he won "the one thing needful" would have won purity of heart.
No fair, that is my line!
For me, at least, there is too much effort required to find the right bucket of beliefs that our opponents hold, many of them shifting like wind blown sand. Thus, it is easier to characterize them by what they are not, they are not Calvinists, and I leave it at that.
I make a few exceptions to this rule, but mainly regarding those who are on our "side" of the fence. An example is drstevej, an honest Amyraldian.
You have to believe for yourself.
If that's overemphasizing personal responsibility, then so be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.