/christianity/ -Soteriology

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag	open flag menu
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload5 per post.

File: 392225d8bf9f6b1⋯.jpg (89.21 KB,432x648,2:3,IMG_2057.jpg)

Soteriology 07/29/19 (Mon) 22:42:23 034f4d No.10110

Calvinism, molinism, and arminianism are all wrong, provisionism (or "traditionalism" in the SBC) is correct.

Exegetically change my mind.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/29/19 (Mon) 23:05:27 923817 No.10111

looks good. I prefer to call it Primary Source Theology, because it's the only possible conclusion from studying what Jesus and Sts. Paul and John the Evangelist actually said, as opposed to what people said about what people said about what people said about the Deposit of Faith.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/29/19 (Mon) 23:07:31 c02421 No.10112

what tenet of that would a molinist disagree with?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/29/19 (Mon) 23:17:03 45b88a No.10114

>>10110

This position sounds less dubious than calvinism and arminianism, I'll grant you that. But…

>vicarious atonement

It's not the spilling of his blood that enabled our salvation, it was his entire life and the incarnation itself:

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/athanasius/

>Illuminating grace

Vague. Is this suggesting that the truth is clearly revealed to everyone, or only that the clear truth is available somewhere? Is the truth limited only to what's explicitly contained in the scriptures, or can it be found in other sources as well (such as the church fathers)?

>Destroyed

Is this equating unbelief to resistance, or saying that that they're both damned regardless of the difference?

>Eternal Security

This makes it sound like it's just Calvinism all over again. If someone starts as a true believer and then turns away from the faith later, are they still "eternally saved"?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/29/19 (Mon) 23:32:52 c83044 No.10115

File: c322f29c33f9c27⋯.jpg (187.66 KB,854x1200,427:600,CatholicProtestantcontext.jpg)

Believing in God and denying Predestination is foolish.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/29/19 (Mon) 23:36:59 038f80 No.10116

>>10115

Wow, I really need to to tell my Protestant seminary professors that they're going against the Reformation by requiring me to read the ante Nicene fathers. Thanks

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/29/19 (Mon) 23:38:59 034f4d No.10117

>>10115

Nobody is denying predestination

Nobody likewise wants to read your wall of text. Bring your argument here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/30/19 (Tue) 00:38:23 034f4d No.10124

>>10112

This presentation doesn't include middle knowledge. I know know what a molinist would say in response.

>>10111

That's not quite fair, most arminians, molinists and calvinists believe that their position is the one scripture demands

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/30/19 (Tue) 03:54:53 d30ca2 No.10151

You're an Arminian

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

07/30/19 (Tue) 03:58:27 d30ca2 No.10152

>>10151

Wait, I must amend myself. Leighton Flowers recently dove head first into full-blown Pelagianism with his "choice meat" thing, so you're probably a Pelagian.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/18/20 (Sat) 18:10:55 402240 No.12147

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Required viewing

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/19/20 (Sun) 23:10:10 8e078d No.12193

>>10110

>Exegetically change my mind.

First change my mind that this so-called provisionism is anything other than Leighton "free will is an act of creation" Flowers's special snowflake brand of Pelagianism. The guy can't even argue without being disingenuous and outright deceitful in how he represents his soteriological opponents.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/19/20 (Sun) 23:25:15 402240 No.12194

>>12193

Angry James White disciple spotted

>special snowflake brand of Pelagianism.

Now THAT is disingenuous

Not only is Leighton flowers not guilty of what you're claiming, he spends way too much time being courteous and explaining how there's no personal nature to any critique. He always says how calvinists are brothers who he happily will fellowship with.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/20/20 (Mon) 01:03:12 8e078d No.12198

>>12194

>Not only is Leighton flowers not guilty of what you're claiming, he spends way too much time being courteous and explaining how there's no personal nature to any critique.

Don't give me that nonsense. I watched the entirety of his interview with Andy Stanley, without any of White's commentary. He either can't or won't accurately represent Calvinism, and I'm inclined to believe it's the latter because he's not unintelligent. My other objections still stand.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/20/20 (Mon) 01:45:06 402240 No.12199

>>12198

Ok. I haven't watched that one and I don't expect you to call up timestamps, but he's a former calvinist professor himself and is extremely meticulous about definitions.

You said he "can't even argue without being disingenuous and outright deceitful" which is a total grasp at straws. That's a different thing from saying you didn't like him at one debate, and I don't believe you at that.

Even still, you have not brought an argument.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/20/20 (Mon) 03:39:19 8e078d No.12208

>>12199

>he's a former calvinist professor himself and is extremely meticulous about definitions.

I'm aware of what he claims to be, but honest to God, if he's being sincere, he could not have ever understood proper Calvinism and he won't accept correction. It's infuriating. His definitions may be precise, but that doesn't make them accurate.

>which is a total grasp at straws.

If he's insincere, then his consistent inability to correctly define Calvinist doctrines can only be interpreted as deceitful. I have an extremely difficult time believing that someone as intelligent as him can't accurately represent an opposing position. Would he have this same problem representing Mormon doctrines or sacralism or something? If he did, then I'd be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

>Even still, you have not brought an argument.

My argument is that the only way the soteriological position in OP's image seems different from Pelagianism to me is that he's trying to shoehorn in OSAS while calling it Eternal Security for some reason. (Those are not the same thing.) Otherwise his position is pretty much a point-by-point reversal of at least 4 of Calvinism's 5 points. All he did was repackage the same old nonsense under a new name to try to make it look more legitimate because he's so hung up on the idea of God not interfering with man's will.

R - He specifically says man is able to respond. This is poorly defined and doesn't make clear what his view of man's will is. Why is man able to respond? Is there some kind of enabling grace or is man's will not corrupted to begin with? He has literally said before that an exercise of man's free will is an act of "creatio ex nihilo", which gives me the impression that he has a very high view of man's condition. Maybe he just didn't understand the implications of that, but I'm not sure.

O and I - Denial of Irresistable grace and particular redemption. Is the extent of the Holy Spirit's role in salvation the general revelation of scripture? What exactly does he say the Holy Spirit does?

V - Vicarious is an extremely strange word in this case. I hope he's just using it to make it fit into the acrostic and not because he's trying to describe a doctrine at odds with substitutionary atonement.

D - Again, this makes me call into question what his view of man's nature and will is.

E - This is just irresponsible. He's using Eternal Security on purpose, despite misrepresenting what the historical doctrine of Eternal Security actually entailed. How does he even say his so-called "Eternal Security" works and what does it look like? Unless he's changed positions on this issue, I already know the answer to this question and it doesn't involve the Holy Spirit.

I'm not using the term Pelagianism lightly.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/20/20 (Mon) 03:57:58 402240 No.12212

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>12208

You're not meaning pelagian lightly, sure, you're just using liberally throwing it around despite the weight it carries as an accusation. That's a dumb tactic so stop using it. It doesn't help your case, traditionalism is obviously not pelagian.

What does he not understand about Calvinism that you do? You're just waving your hand alluding to these mistakes as if I'm supposed to just blindly affirm your anonymous judgment of his doctrine

The acronym is just a tool like TULIP. Criticizing how the tool is constructed is not arguing against the position.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01/20/20 (Mon) 05:05:08 8e078d No.12214

File: 33dfe826fa8d9db⋯.webm (10.2 MB,854x480,427:240,What is Calvinism-VTghv1_….webm)

>>12212

>you're just using liberally throwing it around despite the weight it carries as an accusation.

I just went through the points that I take issue with and demonstrated exactly why I'm concerned that he may be expressing a form of Pelagianism, focusing on the ambiguity of his view of the human condition. How is that liberal usage? The defining feature of Pelagianism is a denial of original sin. The way some of those doctrines are defined logically necessitates a denial of original sin, unless he somewhere provides a mechanism around that. Feel free to provide me with a clarification from his website or something if he does that somewhere.

>traditionalism is obviously not pelagian

"Traditionalism" is not traditional by any stretch of the imagination, but regardless, the current soteriology of most Southern Baptists today is not Pelagian. I'm questioning whether he's actually even being fully consistent with them at this point. The further into explanations he tries to go to explain Free Will, the more heretical his explanations are going to have to get to give it consistency. Modern Southern Baptists can only go so deep with soteriology before they have to throw up their hands and say "It's a mystery! The roads of free will and predestination meet together in eternity!", but Leighton is trying to take it deeper. This is his area of focus and he's determined to make it work.

>What does he not understand about Calvinism that you do?

See video. That one is from Leighton's channel.

>Total Inability –→ No one can want God unless God wants them.

>Unconditional Election –→ God does not want everyone.

>Limited Atonement → God sent Christ to pay only for the sins of those He wants.

>Irresistable Grace –→ If God wants you then He will make you want Him.

>Perseverence of the aints → God makes those He wants to continue to want Him forever.

This is how he is representing the doctrines of grace. These are his own words. His phrasing betrays a very shallow and biased understanding of the doctrines at best, but much more likely a desire to intentionally poison the well. This is the spirit in which he always presents the doctrines every time I have seen him do it. That video is about as fair as a political campaign attack ad, and that's in no way hyperbole. It even has the ominous music to go with it! Until it gets to the "good" part though, then the music changes to happy music because it's intended to be persuasive.

>The acronym is just a tool like TULIP

That would be wonderful if he actually took the time to make his acrostic as detailed as the Five Articles of Remonstrance, so that there wasn't confusion about what he was saying. I don't think that's asking too much.

>Criticizing how the tool is constructed is not arguing against the position.

I detailed my concerns on the ambiguity. Clarify it for me if my concerns are unfounded.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

02/20/20 (Thu) 02:35:38 26709c No.12852

Posting my exegetical reply over on >>>/christian/ since this board is now closed…

https://8kun.top/christian/res/827800.html

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

04/11/20 (Sat) 23:18:39 e9cac9 No.12888

you are all anathema

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.