# CUPS and BAGS a new soteriological statement; 5 new articles



## athanatos (Oct 9, 2011)

Please read it all before posting.
Calvinists and Arminians: Two Ecumenical Statements on Soteriology

What are your thoughts? I am not asking for a condemnation or approval (... like, _at all_, seriously don't give it). I am wondering *which* of these statements are accurate/faithful to Scripture, what this statement *overall* might say about our culture/Church, and what you think about the individual word-choices.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 10, 2011)

Taking you at your word, how is one to respond at all? Pointing out the Scriptural truths amounts to approval. Pointing out what I might see as flaws amounts to condemnation. 

I'll give a stab at what it might say overall, but it will come across as condemnation. The author attempts to defuse tension by reducing the impact of words. 

For example, "prohibitive depravity's" definition is true, but not accurate because it looks at depravity as a matter of degree. It implies that we are too bad to seek God ourselves, but leaves the door open for us to have something within us that isn't too bad. 

"Constant pursuit" implies something that is not necessarily true. It suggests that God is always pursuing, when in fact we hear of him withholding his presence.

And "Answer when called" says too little. Of course Jesus expected his disciples to follow him. Just as dead Lazarus obeyed his command. It's not a matter of "somehow" at all.

And so forth. I find it to be a method of weakening the gospel and, despite intentions, a way of diminishing our obligation to give God glory.

(So, I can't help myself--asking for an opinion demands at least some sort of approval or condemnation).


----------



## athanatos (Oct 10, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> Taking you at your word, how is one to respond at all? Pointing out the Scriptural truths amounts to approval. Pointing out what I might see as flaws amounts to condemnation.
> 
> (So, I can't help myself--asking for an opinion demands at least some sort of approval or condemnation).


I realize that being Scriptural is approval, but saying how it does not agree with Scripture is qualitatively different from "I think it looks heretical."

Meanwhile, your post was essentially what kind of insight I am looking for.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Oct 10, 2011)

Interesting. A friend of mine, who doesn't like Calvinism, sent me this on Facebook back in June. He thought it would be helpful to bring Arminians & Cavinists together; to show what we had in common.
I tried to comment on every point for him. (Which he seemed to just dismiss.) But my overall thought on this statement was that it was just a vague description of Arminianism. I would not use this myself. I told my friend to just stick with TULIP. (I don't think he liked my advice.)


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 10, 2011)

Pilgrim72 said:


> ...just stick with TULIP.



Amen.


----------

