Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcFadden  Given the logical interrelatedness of the five, you might as well separate a cake into flour, milk, eggs, sugar, and butter as try to claim one without the other. However, L is the one most people fixate on as the toughest. After all, Moïse Amyraut didn't make it into the history books for believing in ULIP, TLIP, TULI, or TULP. The L has gone down in the annals of historical theology as the staw the breakes the Arminian camel's back.
Or, if you are Ergun Caner, believing such a doctrine will do nothing except "kill your churches with sermons expounding the Westminster Confession? . . . "justify your laziness" . . . as you adopt "semi-Presbyterianism" . . . and run the church like an "oligarchy." As Caner says, "You do the math. And just because you cannot answer the questions concerning your views of predetermined fatalism does not make his arguments 'straw men.'" |
One of my closest friends is a devout Arminian/open-theist/inclusivist/non-theologian, but he believes in "L". He denies T, P, especially I, and most of U, but this guy loves his Limited Atonement (He's also been seen around town with A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y
).
But seriously, Somehow I get the feeling that this represents the theology of a lot of Christians today (ones raised in churches without expository preaching; churches run by soccer mom's and fans of Rick Warren); they believe that everyone has to "make a decision for God" and they are completely free to do whatever they want, but once they are a Christian, they are secured by Christ because of His sacrifice. As much as I want my brothers and sister to cling to the cross in their sanctification, they can't have their cake and eat it too.