SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Well, Ben, my problem is that I see no difference between the two.
If I may be a bit pointed - THAT is precisely your problem.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, Ben, my problem is that I see no difference between the two.
Speaking for myself. I do see Arminianism as false. As do the historic Reformed churches (at least it seems so confessionally).
Some things that all one this board would find non-debatable would be that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is false, Mormon theology as a whole is false, adoptionism and Arianism are false.
I see things such as Framework Hypothesis and Historic Premillenialism as incorrect but they do not always lead to a church being considered false in the way Ben is using the term.
Does that make sense?
Samuel does that help clarify things?
Speaking for myself. I do see Arminianism as false. As do the historic Reformed churches (at least it seems so confessionally).
Some things that all one this board would find non-debatable would be that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is false, Mormon theology as a whole is false, adoptionism and Arianism are false.
I see things such as Framework Hypothesis and Historic Premillenialism as incorrect but they do not always lead to a church being considered false in the way Ben is using the term.
Does that make sense?
Samuel does that help clarify things?
Frankly, that didn't help very much. But it seems to me that your thinking goes something like this: the distinction between an error and a lie is a matter of whether an error pertains to soteriology. In other words, an error in things that are irrelevant for a Christian to believe in order to be saved cannot be regarded as a lie. But that still wouldn't make any sense to me. An error is something that is not true, that is, it is a lie. Right?
I never used the word lie. I also didn't use irrelevant.
Suffice it to say there are degrees of wrongness. Some sins are not as heinous as others. Therefore some errors are not as heinous as others. That is what I was trying to try. I realize my above post was unclear.
Samuel,
Do your parents' church teach that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner? I have met Pentecostals before who do not believe that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner.
I have met Pentecostals before who do not believe that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner.
How can you know whether one is genuinely saved or not? If you just say, "I know them by their fruits," then I will reply, "Aren't these fruits, in their original context, referring to one's doctrine (not works), as in the case of the Pharisees?" Thus, if Arminians are to be judged by their doctrine, I would say they have no fruit -- at least not in the area of the Gospel.
As long as they give place to man-centeredness, they deny the true Gospel.
MajP: We may worship God only in the ways He has commanded.
MinP: God has never commanded us to worship Him with a heretic
Conclusion: We may not worship God with a heretic.
BOOM!!!! Irrefutable Logic.
How can you know whether one is genuinely saved or not? If you just say, "I know them by their fruits," then I will reply, "Aren't these fruits, in their original context, referring to one's doctrine (not works), as in the case of the Pharisees?" Thus, if Arminians are to be judged by their doctrine, I would say they have no fruit -- at least not in the area of the Gospel.
I know that people can be saved by a weak, Arminian gospel because I was and the testimony of the Christian church reveals saints of the past and present who had a poor understanding of Calvinism and certain details of the Gospel and yet clung to the cross as their only hope. Your doctrinal expectations of every saint of every generation is anachronistic (at best) and a low view of God's sovereign work in salvation through the means of Gospel truth. Do you really think the entire multitude of repenters in Acts 2 had a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion? No, they didn't - but they definitely saw their need for Christ because of the sins they had committed and so repented. Many Arminians have the same testimony.
As long as they give place to man-centeredness, they deny the true Gospel.
I'll be honest with you, expecting fallen people to give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the gospel is absurd. We have not lost every vestige of man-centeredness! Sinners need the gospel in order to not give place to man-centeredness, and that work of sanctification will be a life-long process. Whether one hears and believes a few truths of the gospel and is converted or understands and embraces every fact of Scripture about the gospel and is converted, the Lord has saved a soul by means of the gospel. In either case, our fallen minds will continue to misunderstand and disbelieve certain aspects of truth--unless of course you want to argue that your doctrine is impeccable. Thanks be to God, He grants repentance even when our understanding of Him and His work is imperfect. That is amazing grace.
I never said that you must have "a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion." I myself had been regenerated and converted for at least a whole year and had never even heard of such terms as Calvinism or TULIP.
You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say sinners have to PERFECTLY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. What I meant was that sinners have to GENUINELY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. To trust in yourself in the least cannot even enter into your mind, if you truly trust in Christ and Him alone. That's what I meant by saying there is no place for man-centeredness. But also, if you genuinely believe God is in any way obligated to save you, that faith is not saving.
Mr. Lucas
we need to be careful in using the “heretic” word; in the history of the church, it is typically reserved for those who deny the Trinity/deity of Jesus. That is, of course, how John uses it in his epistle.