Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

Your views are objectionable for reasons which make it difficult to accept you as Christian, most potently your refusal to see God as Universal Father.

And yet, in its efforts to extend God's grace to all men, Arminianism raises mankind to such a level that it would seem we hardly require God in the first place. Though it glosses over the morbid reflection Calvinism gives of mankind, Arminianism still suffers from the same fundamental issues, in that a loving God would create a creature with the capacity to sin, and punish them for it. Ultimately, their sins are still a product of what they are - imperfect beings, created as such by God.

This just demonstrates your ignorance of scipture and the state of things outside your own denomination. The Gideons society, and the Army, issue a special NT, Psalms and Commandments Bible to children, and serving soldiers. It does a more than an adaquate job as a spiritual comfort and communicator of the basics of the Gospel. Additionally, unless I miss my guess I would say Magyar is reffering to the Israelite interpretation of God, not the person of God Himself.

That is a perfectly valid point, and the opinion is held by Theologians of many denominations.

If that is what Magyar was suggesting, then he should have said so. I also do not understand your comment about my denomination, do we read the same scripture or not (generally speaking of course, at least as far as the parts about Yahweh being a "war god" go)?

Also, just because we can get by as Christians with the NT does not mean that the OT is not important, otherwise Jesus would not have bothered referring to it. If people give out special NTs or whatever, then that is of course fine, in fact it is probably recommended over ploughing through the whole thing from Genesis, although that's what I did myself. As I said, Jesus is our only example and that's all we need to know, so if Jesus worshipped Him, as He was in the Jewish scriptures, then we should too. Jesus never once told the Jews they were worshipping a false God, he simply told them of their failures to serve him.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated you do not understand the Christian conception of God, which is why you can't understand what you just said is nonsense.

1. God is all powerful.

2. He is best by no counterforce and restricted by none save himself.

3. Therefore all proceeds as he Wills

This was hardly new to Arminius, it's Christianity 101. It follows directly that if ANYONE goes to heaven it is by the will of God and if ANYONE does not it is also by God's Will. Throughout history most Theologians have said that man must have free will, because otherwise God would not Will anyone into Hell.

Calvin, for no apparent reason took the conception of God as a benevolant Father and turned it on it's head, if people go to Hell it MUST be his Will because God is irresistable. What Calvin did was identify the inherrent flaw in the Free Will arguement (how to reconcile Free Will with Divine Kowledge) closed it and instead created the problem of why God Loves some people more than others.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so if he wants man to have free will, he does. On the other hand, Calvin's God is either unjust (and therefore not God) or limited in power (and therefore not God).

In all the times we have had this arguement you have always appealed to mechanical simplicity, suggesting that because there is an apparent difficulty in the mechanism by which God grants free will it must be an illusion, but you have never answered the question of why God hates me when he made me and decides my every action.

Though it might be surprising to people here, I am a pretty timid soul in RL. I might have easily been discouraged by your confident dismissal of my understanding of God, if you have not then went on to ascribe it to Calvin as well, which is quite clearly a foolish and unfair thing to do, even to the most hard-headed Pelagian.

I cannot understand your argument that God should save us all, as if we are deserving of it, or He is somehow obliged to take mercy on us. But then that stems also from our differences in what we see to be the fallen nature of man. In it's efforts to counter Calvinism (which we should remember, that is what Arminianism aimed to do - Calvinism is often seen as the negative, defensive reaction to Arminianism on account of the 5 TULIP points being raised in the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrants, as if Arminianism was somehow the more 'natural' form, and Calvinism a corrupt offshoot), the Arminians attacked the very roots of Christianity - that we are all born sinners. And so this creates many problems that are undeniably equal to that many see in the doctrine of limited atonement. It seems that this semi-Pelagianism would have us believe that we have the right to boast of our salvation as Grevinchovius so proudly did, as though the scripture was mistaken to ever tell us that it was a gift and not the result of works that we could boast of. Arminianism makes man out to be a sort of morally neutral agent; fundamentally good and yet somewhat defective, and as such a creature that should be seen as fit for God's mercy. Calvinism doesn't, it teaches we are sinners, in fact more than that, it teaches that we are sin in our fallen condition. God transforms us from darkness to light (Ephesians 5:8), and does not speak of a dull flame, or a match waiting to spark itself with some prompting (for the holy ghost is no more than a general moral persuasion in Arminianism, apparently somehow appealing to us when we still have a heart of stone).

And so, in fairness, we each have elements to our teachings which many Christians today would not be happy to lend their support to. The fact is, some people are saved and others are not. You can attack me and tell me that limited atonement is an un-Christian doctrine, but there seems to me nothing more un-Christian that boasting of salvation, as if one person deserves it more than anther. And if it is by chance that some are saved and others not, then this seems hardly more ideal than limited atonement in the first place.