"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More

Institute on Religion and Democracy ^ | Mark Tooley

[Cvengr]

..Your theology (and I use the term loosely) is Pelagian and gnostic, and is doubly heresy...

Strike 2, The points I have made are neither gnostic nor Pelagian. There seems to be a weakness for those who have begun their studies in systematic theology from Calvinist leaning doctrines to hastily label any understanding of Scripture other than Calvinism to only fall into the camp of Pelagian, Arminian, Gnostic, or Univeral theologies.

[Cvengr]

WRT 1Pe 2:21-24, Thank You for posting the Scriptural testimony which reasserts the Universal Atonement. Obviously not the flesh which was the sacrifice. It had been scarred. But the spirit indwelling the flesh identified with self and the soul, which remained perfect.

[Kevin Curry]

I reckon they'll be voting for Arnold.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. He can win, you see.

"I have no sexual standards in my head that say this is good or this is bad. Homosexual-that only means to me that he enjoys sex with a man and I enjoy sex with a woman. It's all legitimate to me." A. Schwarzenegger

[Cvengr]

Once again,...The universal position that all of man's works are unrighteous fails to give credit to the work of Christ and the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit.

All of the Calvinist leanings to declare universally that man has no righteous work, are only supportted by Scripture referenceing the unregenerate man, the natural man, the degenerate fallen man.

Again, the statement that all men are unrighteous does not apply to the work of those who are believers, acting in fellowship with God. The universal statement applies to all persons who are within the set of 'man', including Jesus Christ Himself who is God incarnate and is now resurrected.

[Cvengr]

For about 400 posts on another thread and now on this thread, a contrived argument is being called that somehow somebody has wronged you. You may want to return to the other thread, go back and read my post around #340 or so, off the top of my head, and reconsider the meaning.

1) Scripture provides considerable guidance on indicators of who might and might not be acting in fellowship with Him.

2) Those out of fellowship are encouraged to return to Him.

3) Failure to remain in fellowship with Him frequently is manifested in arrogance.

Good luck in your study.

[Roscoe]

Schwarzenegger's outlook can best be summed up in an interview he gave to The Sunday Telegraph magazine in November 1999 in which he admonished his party members to alter their approach.

The Republican Party, Schwarzenegger said, "is going to lose until you become a party of inclusion." He went on to say, "that you love the foreigner that comes in with no money, as much as a gay person, as a lesbian person, as anyone else -- someone who is uneducated, some who's from the inner city."

He's the Hillary Clinton of the Republican Party.

[Cvengr]

The natural man's will is born a slave to sin and his spirit is dead. He cannot serve two masters.

Good post, we agree on this.

"...does (Is a) man today born with a free will(?). Clearly the answer is no. "

Man is not first born regenerated in spirit, but has a range of choices within his sinful nature, all degenerate, until he receives common grace from the Father in His call by understanding the Gospel message, inbreathing it, and then man may choose in free will whether or not to believe in Him and accept Christ with faith. (Followed by the Holy Spirit making that faith effective, efficacious grace, for salvation, ...there is nothing man can do, alone by himself, to effect salvation.)

[Cvengr]

Good to read the quotes,. ..although I disagree with Arnold.

I get the feeling Arnold is pulling a Ross Perot.

[Cvengr]

"God created man(and woman) with free choice ;and that means each may choose good or evil, may choose to obey or disobey,and will be judged on his own choices."

Good post, although if I may offer some constructive criticism. Man was created with volition, although after the fall in the Garden of Eden we are dead in the spirit, a soulish people if you will also referred to as the natural man. We do have the ability to choose good or evil, but without Divine good, our good is merely a human good, which is parlayed into evil by the devil.

We are judged first by our name in the book of life and then by the Book of Works. Sin was judged on the cross. God is looking for righteous works in the coming jusgment. If one fails to have salvation, their works are good for nothing and burnt up. Those not saved are then discarded into the Lake of Fire.

[Alex Murphy]

Now, how did that get in there??? Shoots your little theory all to hell, doesn't it?

Universal salvation, remember? Not even theories go to hell anymore :)

[Frumanchu]

Judge not lest ye also be judged.

[varon]

Okay, so now what are we going to do?

Polyamorize, of course ;-)

[CCWoody]

Free Will has no basis in Scripture,.... ~ Dr Warmoose

Ahh, I see you are spanking Cvengr. I hope he hasn't challenged your salvation yet.

BTW, to comment on your excellent response, I would also say that the so called will doesn't have any basis in a discussion of Salvation. It is his nature which ultimately determines his destination.


• Unless a man is born again, he cannot see. ~ John 3:3
• Unless a man is born again, he cannot enter. ~ John 3:5

And, lest anyone think that the will of man is involved, we are told that even when we were dead in our sin, we were made alive together with Christ. Where was your will 2000 years ago, O vain man, when you were made alive with Christ?

And He has made you alive, who were once dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience; among whom we also had our way of life in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved), and has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
(Eph 2:1-9 MKJV)

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

BTW, I'm a Panhandle boy. How far away in this great state from me are you?

[Scenic Sounds]

Polyamorize, of course ;-)

Well, count me out! We've got too much love in this world already! ;-)

[Dr Warmoose]

We are so off topic here...keeping this friendly, of course...you postulate:

...until he receives common grace from the Father in His call by understanding the Gospel message, inbreathing it, and then man may choose in free will whether or not to believe in Him and accept Christ with faith.

So your reformed friends have been making some progress in at least you see that the natural man hates God, so a change has to take place first. I am intrigued, though by this new hypothesis that the Paraclete breathes in this "understanding" but not enough understanding where the person "chooses" positively for Christ - in other words, there is a chance that not enough understanding was breathed in and the person could still rebel against the command to repent.

It sounds real lame. If you really had understanding that you were worthless scum deserving eternal torment, that there was absolutely nothing to love about you, and that every breath you drew was offensive to a Holy God, but yet "choosing Christ" would mitigate this animosity and you would be released from sin, Hell and bondage and spend eternity in a love relationship with the Creator of all things - now why would anyone choose eternal damnation? Yet, you are saying that the overwhelming majority of people, once enlightened prefer utter eternal destruction. How exactly is that rational or evidence of understanding? To me, it looks like in light of all this alleged understanding, a refusal to "choose Christ" would seem like prima facie evidence of a will still bound to sin and death.

You also introduced a new element called "Common Grace". The presbyterians invented that term a century or so ago, and applied it to explaining why man isn't as wicked in his works as he could possibly be.

Let me say I hate the concept of "common grace" because first, it is an oxymoron in that grace means "unmerited favor", and if everyone receives "favor" then "favor" sort of loses its defining characteristic since there is no one who doesn't receive favor, the favor is gone and it becomes a standard entitlement.

Second, the very idea that there is a non-salvific form of grace is disturbing because a grace that does not save is not worth anything, and does nothing to further the Kingdom of God. Let's say we adopted the presbyterian form of "common grace" that talks about material provision that bothe the regenerate and the reprobate enjoy. Consider Christ's words record in Matthew 16:26 "For whatr profit is to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?"

But let me take the time to directly attack your hypothesis that the spirit gives man some understanding, but not necessarilly efficacious understanding. I call this hypothesis the Forced Reprobation Policy. In that the person is given exactly one chance to "choose Christ", after that the person is reprobated to Hell forever. There is no reject Christ this Sunday and choose Christ the next. For we have Hebrews 6:4-6 that says that if a person has received this understanding of the holy spirit and rejects it, that it is "impossible for those who were once enlightened...to renew them to repentance." In Christ, there are no second chances.

The Hebrews passage has harmony with Calvinist views towards irresistable grace and perseverance, BTW.

For me, I struggle with a non efficacious grace that is handed out to anyone - it is defective grace, grace without purpose, and if anything, to the reprobate is worse than any grace at all.

[nobdysfool]

Why do you now declare yourself to be God?

I am doing no such thing. You're trying to avoid the issue.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Mat 18:15-17)

You refuse to acknowledge that you did me wrong. Your pride prevents you from admitting that you spoke that which was not right. You can justify in your own mind and by deceitful words here that which you did, but there are witnesses who know what you did, and have also publicly asked for your apology to me.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1Jo 1:10)

What's it going to be? Will you publicly retract your false judgment of me, or will you persist in your lie?

[gogeo]

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments. There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

You're being disengenuous. Bad judgments are bad judgments, regardless of the subject. To suggest outcome-based judgments are preferable is antithecal to the rule of law. You do know how our system works, right?

[nobdysfool]

For about 400 posts on another thread and now on this thread, a contrived argument is being called that somehow somebody has wronged you. You may want to return to the other thread, go back and read my post around #340 or so, off the top of my head, and reconsider the meaning.

"somehow somebody has wronged you"...Interesting spin. YOU are that somebody, and YOU in fact, DID publicly call into question my salvation, solely because I withstood you in false doctrine. I have assembled the salient posts here:

From the FR thread "Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism"

Then perhaps you aren't saved yet. 395 posted on 08/17/2003 11:11 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) ___________________________________________ The entire posting might make sense to the soulish man, one not yet a believer, for such a person is dichotomous and things of the sirit are foolishness to him. ...... You are on the right track to study Scripture. Now study it after returning to righteous relationship with Him and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you where one's soul may have been previously scarred. 401 posted on 08/17/2003 11:59 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) _______________________________________ My, that is an incredible leap of logic. An observation by no means is a judgment. Discerning between soulish things and things of the spirit are foolishness to those not yet saved. If this is foolishness to you, then perhaps you are not in fellowship with Him. Man is originally born with only soul and body, so those unsaved will not understand these things. Also, one who has been saved, but has fallen without repentence and acting out of human good, rather than divine good, also might not see them. Do you understand them? 402 posted on 08/18/2003 12:02 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) ________________________________________ No, I'm not arrogant, I am deeply offended. To a level you have no way of understanding. You were challenging my salvation, and you haven't got the decency to admit it. 540 posted on 08/19/2003 3:36 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) ____________________________________________ Tough 542 posted on 08/19/2003 3:42 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) ______________________________________________ I made an orthodox confession of faith and have defended that confession. You questioned my salvation, called me "soulish", speculated that I might in fact not be saved, impuned my posts, and even now are hinting that you believe I have a fallen nature, which is tantamount to saying that I am not a Christian. How dare you make such accusations, such slander, and such false statements?! Who gave you the right? 694 posted on 08/20/2003 2:11 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) ________________________________________________ This is orthodox, this is Truth, and this is my confession of faith, that the Father chose me (I did not first choose Him), and saved me by His Effectual Grace which enabled me to believe, by the power and work of Jesus Christ, Who died, was buried, and rose the third day for my justification, and Who shall come again to receive me into His Glory at His Blessed Return. This I believe and affirm with all my heart. 758 posted on 08/21/2003 1:45 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) _________________________________________________ A statement of orthodoxy is not necessarily an evidence of faith. If such a statement is made while not in fellowship with Him, then it is merely human good, lacking divine good and good for nothing, lacking in faith. 768 posted on 08/21/2003 2:46 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) __________________________________________________ Spirit-filled response? Hardly! Questioning a person's salvation because they aggressively disagree with your doctrine is NOT a Spirit-filled response. And your subsequent obfuscation and avoidance is all the more telling. 769 posted on 08/21/2003 2:49 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) _____________________________________________ I render you no insult. If a person is insulted by application of Bible Doctrine, then this is an indication of degeneracy. 771 posted on 08/21/2003 2:54 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) __________________________________________________ No, it's not. That is the dodge you employ to avoid admitting that you questioned my salvation unjustly, and have continued to do so by implication. I am offended by your questioning of my salvation. Your doctrine is not the issue here. We disagree doctrinally, that is plain for all to see. You crossed the line when you called into question my salvation, or the status thereof. Either way, that was offensive, uncalled for, and indicative to me and many others here of the sin of pride. What you may think in your own thoughts of me is of no concern to me. But when you make it public, it becomes a matter of public record, and that does concern me. It is a matter of honor, sir. You have impuned my honor, and my standing before God in the eyes of others who read these threads. If you cannot see that, and refuse to show the grace and humility that is encouraged of us by God, then you impune your own honor and reputation. 776 posted on 08/21/2003 3:08 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) ________________________________________________ The Great Commission mandated such communication. If you are insulted. Tough. 777 posted on 08/21/2003 3:11 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) _________________________________________________ Your judgment means nothing. You have wronged me, and you know it. God gave you no such command to slander those who don't agree with you. That is ultimately what this is about. I withstood you because you erred doctrinally, and you in turn began to call my salvation into question publicly. You think to impress by the use of "high" language, and want to be seen as "learned" and "mature". All you have succeeded in doing is to make a buffoon of yourself. 778 posted on 08/21/2003 3:22 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) _________________________________________________

Now then, shall we discuss your apology?

[nobdysfool]

For about 400 posts on another thread and now on this thread, a contrived argument is being called that somehow somebody has wronged you. You may want to return to the other thread, go back and read my post around #340 or so, off the top of my head, and reconsider the meaning.

"somehow somebody has wronged you"...Interesting spin. YOU are that somebody, and YOU in fact, DID publicly call into question my salvation, solely because I withstood you in false doctrine. I have assembled the salient posts here:

From the FR thread "Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism"

Then perhaps you aren't saved yet. 395 posted on 08/17/2003 11:11 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))

___________________________________________

The entire posting might make sense to the soulish man, one not yet a believer, for such a person is dichotomous and things of the sirit are foolishness to him. ......

You are on the right track to study Scripture. Now study it after returning to righteous relationship with Him and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you where one's soul may have been previously scarred.

401 posted on 08/17/2003 11:59 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))

_______________________________________

My, that is an incredible leap of logic. An observation by no means is a judgment. Discerning between soulish things and things of the spirit are foolishness to those not yet saved. If this is foolishness to you, then perhaps you are not in fellowship with Him. Man is originally born with only soul and body, so those unsaved will not understand these things. Also, one who has been saved, but has fallen without repentence and acting out of human good, rather than divine good, also might not see them.

Do you understand them?

402 posted on 08/18/2003 12:02 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))

________________________________________

No, I'm not arrogant, I am deeply offended. To a level you have no way of understanding. You were challenging my salvation, and you haven't got the decency to admit it.

540 posted on 08/19/2003 3:36 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)

____________________________________________

Tough

542 posted on 08/19/2003 3:42 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))

______________________________________________

I made an orthodox confession of faith and have defended that confession. You questioned my salvation, called me "soulish", speculated that I might in fact not be saved, impuned my posts, and even now are hinting that you believe I have a fallen nature, which is tantamount to saying that I am not a Christian. How dare you make such accusations, such slander, and such false statements?! Who gave you the right?

694 posted on 08/20/2003 2:11 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)

________________________________________________

This is orthodox, this is Truth, and this is my confession of faith, that the Father chose me (I did not first choose Him), and saved me by His Effectual Grace which enabled me to believe, by the power and work of Jesus Christ, Who died, was buried, and rose the third day for my justification, and Who shall come again to receive me into His Glory at His Blessed Return. This I believe and affirm with all my heart.

758 posted on 08/21/2003 1:45 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)

_________________________________________________

A statement of orthodoxy is not necessarily an evidence of faith. If such a statement is made while not in fellowship with Him, then it is merely human good, lacking divine good and good for nothing, lacking in faith.

768 posted on 08/21/2003 2:46 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))

__________________________________________________

Spirit-filled response? Hardly! Questioning a person's salvation because they aggressively disagree with your doctrine is NOT a Spirit-filled response. And your subsequent obfuscation and avoidance is all the more telling.

769 posted on 08/21/2003 2:49 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)

_____________________________________________

I render you no insult. If a person is insulted by application of Bible Doctrine, then this is an indication of degeneracy.

771 posted on 08/21/2003 2:54 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))

__________________________________________________

No, it's not. That is the dodge you employ to avoid admitting that you questioned my salvation unjustly, and have continued to do so by implication. I am offended by your questioning of my salvation. Your doctrine is not the issue here. We disagree doctrinally, that is plain for all to see. You crossed the line when you called into question my salvation, or the status thereof. Either way, that was offensive, uncalled for, and indicative to me and many others here of the sin of pride. What you may think in your own thoughts of me is of no concern to me. But when you make it public, it becomes a matter of public record, and that does concern me. It is a matter of honor, sir. You have impuned my honor, and my standing before God in the eyes of others who read these threads. If you cannot see that, and refuse to show the grace and humility that is encouraged of us by God, then you impune your own honor and reputation.

776 posted on 08/21/2003 3:08 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)

________________________________________________

The Great Commission mandated such communication. If you are insulted. Tough.

777 posted on 08/21/2003 3:11 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))

_________________________________________________

Your judgment means nothing. You have wronged me, and you know it. God gave you no such command to slander those who don't agree with you. That is ultimately what this is about. I withstood you because you erred doctrinally, and you in turn began to call my salvation into question publicly. You think to impress by the use of "high" language, and want to be seen as "learned" and "mature". All you have succeeded in doing is to make a buffoon of yourself.

778 posted on 08/21/2003 3:22 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)

_________________________________________________

Now then, shall we discuss your apology?

[nobdysfool]

Please remove my post # 258, the formatting is wrong, and I have re-formatted for post # 259. thank you.