> The 15 or so article links of Fortner's did not say anything? You said
> "they were solid" and "Clearly, he said all Arminians were lost". The
> word "all" does not mean all in this case? What is the big deal? This
> seems to be knit pickin to me.
What if someone says that Arminianism is a false gospel and that all Arminians are lost but cannot name a single lost Arminian? In this case, "Arminianism" and "Arminians" are just hypothetical entities with no basis in reality. Certainly, what he said about Arminianism/Arminians is solid. But if it can be applied to no one in particular, what good is it? WHY is Fortner unwilling to call the MOST BLATANT ARMINIAN IN THE WORLD lost?
I'll give an example: Suppose I get up and preach that Hamblinianism is a false gospel and that all Hamblinians are lost. I explain Hamblinianism to be the false doctrine that Jesus was fully God and fully canine. When I preach against Hamblinianism, I give all the proof text to show the damnable error of Hamblinianism, and my preaching is solid. Yet when I am asked to give an example of a lost Hamblinian, I cannot come up with a single example, since Hamblinianism doesn't really exist! I can rant and rave all day that Hamblinians are lost, but if there have never been Hamblinians that have ever walked the earth, then my rant is meaningless!
E-mails, Forums, and Letters