# Do Arminians and Calvinists worship the same God?



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 10, 2010)

This is a question that's been bothering me for a while, since my whole family, save my little sister (graciously saved by God), is Arminian in their doctrine of Scripture: Do we serve _the same _God, regardless our doctrinal differences? Can we really say that? What I will never agree with, though, is that our Gospel is the same. Very often it is addressed by Arminians that we all share the same "common message" that Christ came to suffer for mankind. Well, I've kept telling Arminians there is indeed a "common message", since Christ did ascend from Heaven to suffer for mankind. The thing is, however, that the "common message" has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with the Gospel. Their gospel is NO gospel at all, for they think Christ came to make men's salvation only possible (dependent on men's carnal mind). And after making this point, I usually say, "See, _your_ God cannot accomplish his own will: he's un-omnipotent, a liar, sorrowful, frustrated, changing etc. Now, consider _my_ God, who is the God of the Scriptures!"

If it is NOT appropriate to use _this_ kind of language, then what about other religions and their gods - are they also to be considered as THE ONE TRUE GOD, who we all just don't comprehend at same levels - that this ONE GOD of ours is like an elephant which we just happen to touch from different parts and therefore end up with differing opinions on what God's character is like?

Another question worth of consideration: What if we apply this argumentation to Christ: Because of our differing views of Christ, is it appropriate to say we do NOT serve _the same _Christ?

While the answer to these questions may seem somewhat obvious, there lies within us a principle of fallibility.


----------



## Whitefield (Sep 10, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Do we serve _the same _God, regardless our doctrinal differences?


 
Yes.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Because of our differing views of Christ, is it appropriate to say we do NOT serve _the same _Christ?


 
No.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 10, 2010)

See _The Plan of Salvation_ by B. B. Warfield for an excellent treatment of this question. He both affirms that Calvinism is the most biblically consistent doctrine and denies that all other theological systems are wholly different religions.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Sep 10, 2010)

Yes



> Because of our differing views of Christ, is it appropriate to say we do NOT serve the same Christ?



No

Really, how many people come to a full understanding of TULIP during their conversion?


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

Maybe / Maybe not. 



Maybe / Maybe not. 

Like Turretine we must distinguish. I feel very uneasy about making blanket statements. Each situation is different. For instance, we worship a different God when they (Arminians, Pelagians, Muslims, Jews) no longer affirm what Scripture affirms even though they should know better. Those who darken the truth with false teaching do not worship the same God I believe. I offer as examples Bolsec and Pighius who were outspoken opponents of Calvin. These were men in a position to know better but for a variety of reasons denied God his Sovereignty. These men were not new converts ignorant of but still growing in their faith. What about the Pharisees of Jesus' day?

What about the Neo-Orthodox theologians who use similar words but mean something different. Many of them did not believe in the incarnation or in a physical resurrection. 

What about the Bultmanian project of demythologization? 

What about those who teach another Gospel like Dunn and Wright? Are they not anathematized by/in the New Testament?

Those who consider themselves teaches in the body of Christ should be quaking in their boots lest they mislead others into false beliefs and theological innovation. The Muslims call it bi'da.


----------



## Bern (Sep 11, 2010)

To an extent they do worship a different God. I know that when I was saved, my idea of God was so far from being the true God it was unreal. Its my opinion that I had just enough light to be considered a Christian. I say to an extent, because to the degree we are decieved we all worship "another God", if our ideas about God don't conform to the scriptures. I think there are Arminians who have a high view of God, and there are Arminians who have a low view of God (seeker friendly movement springs to mind here). It is my belief that the latter group contains a high proportion of false converts. Just my opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 11, 2010)

Bern said:


> I think there are Arminians who have a high view of God


 
Well, Arminians have their own definition of 'high'. Arminians, when it comes to God's predestination, often argue as follows, 
"Which is greater, to make man with free will, or to make a pre-programmed robot, too stupid to make a mistake?"
What they miss, though, is that they have just created a being _higher than God himself_ which God cannot have any control of. So, in effect, while Arminians think this argument will make their God look high, when observed properly, it only makes us realize that _their_ God is no God at all.

---------- Post added at 02:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 AM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> See _The Plan of Salvation_ by B. B. Warfield for an excellent treatment of this question. He both affirms that Calvinism is the most biblically consistent doctrine and denies that all other theological systems are wholly different religions.


 
I'll look into it.


----------



## Idelette (Sep 11, 2010)

As long as they are arminians who believe the true gospel, then we can trust that they are believers. The Scripture calls us to recognize sin, repent of it, turn to Christ and place our trust and faith in Him, and Him alone. This is the gospel and both Arminians and Calvinists can agree upon this. I don't believe we are worshipping an entirely different God. We simply have a deeper understanding of who God is and of His character. Even we, as Calvinists, are still flawed in many ways although we hold to a clearer view of God. No one on this side of glory has a complete understanding of who God is, because of our fallen nature. As we grow in Christ and in sanctification.....more and more do we learn of His character and being. It is an ongoing process that has no end. I think this is one of the reasons why we will worship Him for all of eternity.....because we will continually be learning more and more of His character and being! So, simply because Arminians have a weak view of God doesn't necessarily mean they are worshipping an entirely different god altogether.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 11, 2010)

It is true that, if we don't know God _perfectly_, then the unavoidable consequence of that will be that we have _corrupt_ knowledge (based on our own philosophy) of God. HOWEVER, by this I'm only referring to the knowledge of _the depth_ of God's attributes, and not _simply_ to the knowledge of God's attributes, for these we may know and must know in order to have a biblical view of God and a true relationship with God.

None of us knows _the depth_ of God's attributes, but unlike Calvinists, Arminians don't even know all the attributes of God being clearly presented in His word! Thus, our differing comprehensions of _the depth_ of God's attributes won't make us serve a different God. What will do this, however, is if we don't come to agreement of the _plain_ attributes of God.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 11, 2010)

"Arminian" influence runs on a continuum of distortion of biblical doctrine. Prideful, self centered human beings imagine in the vanity of their minds that their sin is not that bad, and/or that God is not that holy.

They imagine themselves doing something good enough to cause their salvation. Some (inconsistently) believe in perseverance of the saints while disbelieving the limited atonement and not understanding total depravity.

In spite of this, God saves those He has chosen. People can know very little biblical doctrine and still be saved (many of us are examples of that). They can believe and communion with wrong biblical doctrine, and misrepresent it before His people and the world.

So, one might ask- why does it matter?

One reason- it is offensive to a holy God to misrepresent Him as sovereign in salvation that He alone effects. And all His creatures, in some sense, are accountable for their sin. All suffer, in some ways, the consequences of their sin, though the same vanity of mind imagines otherwise.

And all this ought cause God's people to marvel at God choosing to redeem self centered, prideful, blind, rebellious, disobedient creatures such as they are.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> It is true that, if we don't know God _perfectly_, then the unavoidable consequence of that will be that we have _corrupt_ knowledge (based on our own philosophy) of God. HOWEVER, by this I'm only referring to the knowledge of _the depth_ of God's attributes, and not _simply_ to the knowledge of God's attributes, for these we may know and must know in order to have a biblical view of God and a true relationship with God.
> 
> None of us knows _the depth_ of God's attributes, but unlike Calvinists, Arminians don't even know all the attributes of God being clearly presented in His word! Thus, our differing comprehensions of _the depth_ of God's attributes won't make us serve a different God. What will do this, however, is if we don't come to agreement of the _plain_ attributes of God.


 
You have the essential answer then. We can have true truth concerning God but not necessarily exhaustive truth concerning God. I believe that many of the groups I mention have this problem - a missing or truncated or twisted understanding of one or many of God's attributes. 

To treat a half-truth as the whole truth is to present an untruth.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Sep 11, 2010)

Idelette said:


> As long as they are arminians who believe the true gospel, then we can trust that they are believers.



If anyone holds to the "true gospel" which is Christ-centred, then they're not truly Arminians at all, In my humble opinion. Though it's true they may not be consistent nor articulate the matter well, much less profess to be Calvinists, etc. Still, I refuse to label someone that might, or seems to be, a believer an Arminian. It's not charitable nor consistent to do so given how I understand and define the term Arminianism. 

Furthermore, it seems to me that it causes confusion to on the one hand affirm with Dort, and Augustus Toplady (who pinned "Arminianism: The Road back to Rome."), that Arminianism is serious error, while on the other hand stating that one can hold to it while also holding to the Christ-centred Gospel. This point is proven In my humble opinion again and again when there are discussions on this topic. I've also noted this in your posts in the past, as it seems you too (same as me) are not comfortable using the term Arminian in this way. Of course, you're welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

Toplady said it rightly: "Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged."


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 11, 2010)

A few years ago, the PB had this thread. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f59/arminian-god-not-worshippable-11817/
It seems that the debates got rather intense and there are clearly no easy answers. I'll know for sure when I see God in person.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 11, 2010)

The reason why I asked the question, "Do Arminians and Calvinists worship the same God?", is because this greatly concerns Christian unity.

I found the following quote from pastor Mark Kielar on Christian unity very helpful, and I think he puts things to the right order,

"I'm always amazed by the people who, despite God's clear and emphatic commands through the Apostle Paul, say things like, "Ah, we need to forget about the differences in our doctrines, and we just need to love one another." as though those two are consistent goals. Surely they haven't come to realize that the only way we can love right is to live right, and the only way we can live right is to believe right." -Mark Kielar


----------



## Austin (Sep 11, 2010)

There is a continuity of truth that we are all scattered across. As a PCA MTW friend of mine once observed, "We are all in process." As a professor of mine at RTS once said, "We are all recovering Arminians." Some of us are simply inconsistent and unaware that we have the disease. After all, the natural human heart is Arminian. I would (nervously!) put out there that there are a lot of folks on PB who are far more Arminian in practice than they would like to believe. Similarly, there are Arminians who are far more soteriologically Reformed than they know. 

To ask this question is to fall into the error of the Romanists. That is, if you don't believe like me, then you're not a true Christian. But of course, how many of us are in lockstep with one another? Charles Hodge was the only man he knew (in the glory days of Old Princeton!) who took no exceptions to the Westminster Standards. Who wasn't a Christian, he or they? 

Similarly, we may as well ask the same question in relation to Dispensationalists, Baptists (or Reformed Christians), Young Earthers (or Framework guys), etc. We all have mutually exclusive views on various things. But at the end of the day, the only question that will matter is "But Who do YOU say I am?" Can we affirm the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds? Do we adhere to Nicene orthodoxy or not? 

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Whoever believes this shall be saved. Period. 

Shalom,

---------- Post added at 09:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------

PS-- For those of us who are unfamiliar with the Athanasian Creed, here it is: 

The Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

2. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance

4. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.

5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

6. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

7. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

9. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

10. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

11. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

12. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;

13. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

14. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

15. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

16. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

17. And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

18. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;

19. so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

22. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

23. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

24. And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.

25. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.

26. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

27. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

28. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

29. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

30. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.

31. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

32. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

33. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

34. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.

35. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

36. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

37. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;

39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

41. And shall give account of their own works.

42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 11, 2010)

This helps me keep arminianism in context:
1 Cor. 3:1-2 " And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,"

He doesn't fail to call them brethren.

Also in Hebrews 5:11-6:8 the writer urges his listeners to move onto more mature food, but he never said that milk is devoid of nourishment. 

"For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant"

Then he seems to be showing where a milk-alone diet leads to in Heb 6: 4-8

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."


I don't think that he is laying this curse directly on his listeners; he's showing that they have no doctrinal buffer against such a charge. That no assurance can be had without more mature food.


----------



## he beholds (Sep 11, 2010)

I would like to say "of course!" but since this is even a question here it is apparently not unanimous. So I will say, I think anyone who worships God through Christ worships the same God. Some of us may not worship God fully-appropriately, but let's remember that it is God who grants faith to his people. If he has not opened someone's heart to a certain fact about himself, that's for his own purposes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 11, 2010)

It's important to note that not all improper worship is one of worshipping another God. The 1st Commandment is of a different type than the 2nd. While worship of other Gods is idolatrous it is also true that the One God can be worshiped in an idolatrous fashion.

The worship of the golden calve was not, precisely, the worship of another God but the representation of God in a golden calf.

We are all idolaters and need Christ's righteousness for our violations of the 2nd Commandment - however subtle they are to us. It's not a matter of others who are idolaters and we are not but that we are idolaters in differing ways.

In saying this, then, I'm not minimizing the dangers in any error and I find Arminianism to be an error that undermines the Gospel itself but it's not really a matter of worshipping another God but conceiving in the mind a picture of that God that is not consonant with revelation.


----------



## Zenas (Sep 11, 2010)

You're betraying you're own homocentricity in your analysis of those who hold to a homocentric soteriology. You must consider that our ability to worship God in any sense is due entirely to what He has done for us, not on our own understanding of Him. Execution of the soteriological scheme is necessary, in so far as I surmise, prior to proper worship of God. How may the unregenerate worship the God whom they hate and hide themselves from? The question then falls to whether Arminians are regenerate or not, which is why I raise the accusation that you're being homocentric. 

In effect, you're behaving like an Arminian, friend.  

Whether we worship the God of the universe is not dependant on our understanding of Him-it's dependent on His regeneration of us. If this is true, and I believe it is, Arminians, whether their understanding is deficient or not, can worship the same God. Whether they do or not is an open question, just as the ultimate determination of our salvation is an open question. We don't know; indeed we can't know for sure. We are well reminded of the goats who confusedly state that they had always served Christ, but He knew them not. It's as fultile to ask whether Arminians worship the same God as it is to ask whether they're saved. We may have clues as to the truth of it from outward fruits or the lack thereof, but it is ultimately God who saves. This is the Biblical understanding of things.

To state another way or perhaps clarify further, you're seeking to make the effect, true worship, the cause. This is what Arminians do in their mistaken understanding of soteriology. They attribute the effect of salvation, i.e. belief, as the cause of it.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

Listing the Creeds is not sufficient in my mind because these creeds are addressing the Trinity and the Person of Christ not the soteriological aspects of our Christian faith. If holding to the creeds was all there was to it, then the Roman Catholics and Protestants would have no difference in soteriology. 

As to the post which quotes Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, what else was he going to call them but brethren. They are immature in the faith and he gives them the benefit of the doubt. As for Heb 6: 4-8, there is an admonishment to Christian growth and maturity and confirmation (making our calling and election sure) 2 Peter 1:10; unless we think we can loose our salvation.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Sep 11, 2010)

I've noticed Arminians become Calvinists when they pray and when they talk about their true love. God always had this special person picked out for them from the begining of time.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

It may sound that way but it is not. The motivation is completely different I believe. As to the special person picked out from the beginning of time, it is more a case of wishful thinking. ;-)

I used to pray, here I come Lord, whenever I exited the C130 or C141 at 700 feet in the middle of sometimes rainy nights and my parachute was soaking wet! It was not wishful thinking on my part, because I believed I was (and still do) indestructible unless and until it was God's will to the contrary;-)


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 11, 2010)

Calvinus said:


> As to the post which quotes Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, what else was he going to call them but brethren. They are immature in the faith and he gives them the benefit of the doubt.



Yes, that was Paul's ecclesiology. Are you suggesting ours should be different?

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

It should also be recognized that today's arminianism is not the same heresy as it has been at different times in history


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

Yes today's Arminianism is different to the extent that what we have today is a form of Wesleyan Arminianism. Historically Jacob Arminius adopted much of the basis of his theology from Luis de Molina, the Spanish Jesuit. I tried to track Molina's (scientia media) ideas back to the Muslims who were in the Iberian Peninsula for almost 800 years. Interestingly enough, the Muslims debated among themselves as to the extent of Allah's (I use their word because because they do not worship the same God as we do) foreknowledge and whether or not man has autonomy. I have only been partially successful. 

I make no such suggestion as to the Apostle Paul's ecclesiology, I am responding to your emphasis of the word brethren. Just as I would consider you and call you a brother until such time as we cannot do that.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 11, 2010)

Zenas said:


> You're betraying you're own homocentricity in your analysis of those who hold to a homocentric soteriology. You must consider that our ability to worship God in any sense is due entirely to what He has done for us, not on our own understanding of Him. Execution of the soteriological scheme is necessary, in so far as I surmise, prior to proper worship of God. How may the unregenerate worship the God whom they hate and hide themselves from? The question then falls to whether Arminians are regenerate or not, which is why I raise the accusation that you're being homocentric.
> 
> In effect, you're behaving like an Arminian, friend.
> 
> ...


 
It is true none of us worship/glorify God as He _ought to_ be worshipped/glorified. Thus, whether we worship the same God, is not a matter of _how_ we worship Him. Matthew 15:8, 9 says,
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9. But in vain they do worship _me_, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Although these people did _not_ know Christ _for who He is_, it is stated they did worship _Him_, and not Baal or some other god.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

But if it is in vain, it is no worship at all. What are you trying to say? The Reformation was about how we may rightly worship God as well as a correct soteriology.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 11, 2010)

The discussion is over the object of worship, not the manner. It could be argued that the arminian god is a different one, but that has not been shown.


----------



## Idelette (Sep 11, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> It's important to note that not all improper worship is one of worshipping another God. The 1st Commandment is of a different type than the 2nd. While worship of other Gods is idolatrous it is also true that the One God can be worshiped in an idolatrous fashion.
> 
> The worship of the golden calve was not, precisely, the worship of another God but the representation of God in a golden calf.
> 
> ...


 
Rich, I think you articulated exactly what I was trying to say in my previous comment!


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 11, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> A few years ago, the PB had this thread.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f59/arminian-god-not-worshippable-11817/
> It seems that the debates got rather intense and there are clearly no easy answers. I'll know for sure when I see God in person.


 
As one who walked through that and a lot more at the time on the PB let me say this: Be aware that the internet is not a very good format for discussing topics such as these. It generates a lot of heat, but little if any light.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Sep 11, 2010)

Idelette said:


> As long as they are arminians who believe the true gospel, then we can trust that they are believers. The Scripture calls us to recognize sin, repent of it, turn to Christ and place our trust and faith in Him, and Him alone. This is the gospel and both Arminians and Calvinists can agree upon this. I don't believe we are worshipping an entirely different God. We simply have a deeper understanding of who God is and of His character. Even we, as Calvinists, are still flawed in many ways although we hold to a clearer view of God. No one on this side of glory has a complete understanding of who God is, because of our fallen nature. As we grow in Christ and in sanctification.....more and more do we learn of His character and being. It is an ongoing process that has no end. I think this is one of the reasons why we will worship Him for all of eternity.....because we will continually be learning more and more of His character and being!



So well said. Thank you for this insight! I have heard R. C. Sproul say something along the lines of what you said that "none of us this side of glory has a complete understanding of who God is..."


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 12, 2010)

littlepeople said:


> The discussion is over the object of worship, not the manner. It could be argued that the arminian god is a different one, but that has not been shown.


 
I don't think I would split hairs here. What we think of God will determine how we worship Him. How we worship God will have a definite impact on how we approach him or think of Him. Familiarity breeds contempt. Ever hear someone say: God has a vote, the Devil has a vote, and We break the tie! I have, unfortunately, ugh!

Historically, the Synod of Dort and the Canons of Dort, endeavor to demonstrate that the Arminian God is a different one and those adhering to this new God, show their unbelief.

Why are we so afraid to condemn false teachings, false worship, and in the end the creation of a false God? We must endeavor to call those in error out of it and to not hesitate to condemn that error.

In my own desperate search for the true light of the Gospel, I looked to the Roman Catholic Church of my birth. They had no answers but only platitudes. Trusting in God in His mercy, I searched for various books and found the pernicious lies of the Church of Rome and its Papacy. 

How utterly sad it is when we have that usurper of Christ's Lordship visiting England.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 12, 2010)

I do find it interesting that no one interacted with Dr McMahon's article...

I don't think that anyone is arguing for the right to condemn Arminians out of hand, but why is it that we cannot argue against the confessions on this board and yet are able to give this one a pass? It IS heresy, whether you are a 3FU or WCF type (they are both clear on that). Maybe it is more plain vanilla today than it was in the 16th century, but that does not mean that is ceases to be heresy; it seems it is more a measure of what the church now lets in as acceptable behaviour (or turns a blind eye to, which then, after a time of acclimatization, becomes 'normal' or less threatening). I thought the golden calf was a great example, and we should also remember that Nadab and Abihu were merely worshipping God in 'their own way' (yes, this is about 'who' He is, not 'how' we worship, but the example is still about how He is revealed to us and how we interpret that). 

Many Calvinists have perished for holding to the five solas (refusing to budge from their Calvinistic - read Biblical - beliefs). If Arminianism is not the abhorrent heresy it used to be, why bother?


----------



## christiana (Sep 12, 2010)

It appears many Arminians are very committed to Christ in their salvation but they just give theirself more credit for it than we would agree with. We hold a sovereign God regenerates our heart before we have an interest in God and His word and they seem to think it was their idea first! We will all come to knowledge of the whole truth in God's time!


----------



## Frank (Sep 12, 2010)

Just to add to the discussion, this recently happened to me....

I was at a recent local ministerium meeting where I was surrounded by Arminians... The Pastor of one church (female) started talking about why there was so much moral failure among Pastors and she connected that with "that's what happens when they believe they can't lose their salvation". She then pounded the table and said, "You can have your name erased from the book of life"!!

What I wanted to know then is this: How good do I have to be today in order to keep my salvation. I want some specific's, not vague statements. Now if you can't tell me with any specificity "How good I need to be today to keep my name in the book", then you really don't know if you are saved or not...? Sounds scary, making salvation primarily about me and my efforts...


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 12, 2010)

If one is to argue that the Arminian god is not the True God, then he had better be ready to provide the criteria that determines true from false: what's the point of no return? Athanasius attempted to draw the line in the sand when he wrote:


> 43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.


 but he was capable of erring, so was Calvin, so are we.

Let God alone be judge.

Also, Zenas, you wrote:


> ... just as the ultimate determination of our salvation is an open question. We don't know; indeed we can't know for sure.


 Is this really true? Doesn't the Spirit bear witness to our spirit that we are children of God? If we cannot be sure of our election, what's the point of this doctrine? Were the Ephesians supposed to receive Eph chapter 1 on a tentative basis?


----------



## Austin (Sep 13, 2010)

I'd be careful critiquing any of the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon), as these were affirmed by ecumenical councils (which we as catholic Christians also affirm). Remember, the men who drafted these were within shouting distance of the Apostolic era, and what they affirmed is the universal ("catholic") Christian faith. 

As a side note, I was in attendance this morning at a 'Bible Church.' When it came time for the recitation of the Creed (I was, frankly, surprised that they did it!), they announced the Apostles' Creed. My normal practice is to close my eyes and recite it, as I find that I am thereby able to reflect more perfectly on the words. As I began, I was immediately thrown off balance. Their version was something like this: 

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son, who was born of the virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate; the third day He rose again from the dead, and sits at God's right hand. From there He will come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, the fellowship of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, and the coming judgment." 

Now correct me if I am wrong, but this is not the Apostles' Creed. It leaves out a lot-- a lot that is necessary. It immediately threw me for a curve. And frustratingly, my 5 year old son, who has memorized the creed & likes to recite it in the service, had no idea what they were talking about. His response: sit down & start doodling on his bulletin. Mine? I stopped reciting and just stood there. Of course, things didn't get better when they had Communion immediately afterwards (3rd item in the service) and before the preaching of the Word. It was quite bothersome. 

Thoughts?


----------



## cih1355 (Sep 13, 2010)

Frank said:


> Just to add to the discussion, this recently happened to me....
> 
> I was at a recent local ministerium meeting where I was surrounded by Arminians... The Pastor of one church (female) started talking about why there was so much moral failure among Pastors and she connected that with "that's what happens when they believe they can't lose their salvation". She then pounded the table and said, "You can have your name erased from the book of life"!!
> 
> What I wanted to know then is this: How good do I have to be today in order to keep my salvation. I want some specific's, not vague statements. Now if you can't tell me with any specificity "How good I need to be today to keep my name in the book", then you really don't know if you are saved or not...? Sounds scary, making salvation primarily about me and my efforts...


 
There are people who believe like that and at the same time believe that our efforts to obey God are not the basis upon which God justifies His people. Talk about theological dissonance.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

christiana said:


> It appears many Arminians are very committed to Christ in their salvation but they just give theirself more credit for it than we would agree with. We hold a sovereign God regenerates our heart before we have an interest in God and His word and they seem to think it was their idea first! We will all come to knowledge of the whole truth in God's time!


 
If that were true then there would not have been a Reformation. Error is pernicious and spreads like a cancer.

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 AM ----------




Nova said:


> If one is to argue that the Arminian god is not the True God, then he had better be ready to provide the criteria that determines true from false: what's the point of no return? Athanasius attempted to draw the line in the sand when he wrote:
> 
> 
> > 43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
> ...


 
No we are to make a judgment as well. That is why we have God's revelation of who He is in the Bible, our creeds and confessions are a guide to Holy Scripture and from that we are to make a judgment as to what is right and wrong.

Yes, the Holy Spirit does witness to our spirits who we are, that we were purchased with the precious blood of Jesus. We believe that the possession we have of the Holy Spirit will keep us in the truth as long as we search the Scriptures diligently like the Berean church. Why else are we to believe in the Holy Spirit's assurance to us of our salvation along with trusting in what Scripture teaches. 

Otherwise a relativistic attitude will lead us to ruin if not to an anemic faith that is unsure of what we believe in and if what we believe in is important enough to live and die for. 

I for one will not be tentative about what I believe or that it is the truth. There is a difference between true truth and exhaustive truth. And this side of eternity, we will never have absolute certitude (but we trust that there exists absolute truth in Holy Scriptures) because of our sins. However, we have Divine revelation in Holy Scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit and in both we have God's promises, a God to whom we trust our eternal lives.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 AM ----------




CuriousNdenver said:


> Idelette said:
> 
> 
> > As long as they are arminians who believe the true gospel, then we can trust that they are believers. The Scripture calls us to recognize sin, repent of it, turn to Christ and place our trust and faith in Him, and Him alone. This is the gospel and both Arminians and Calvinists can agree upon this. I don't believe we are worshipping an entirely different God. We simply have a deeper understanding of who God is and of His character. Even we, as Calvinists, are still flawed in many ways although we hold to a clearer view of God. No one on this side of glory has a complete understanding of who God is, because of our fallen nature. As we grow in Christ and in sanctification.....more and more do we learn of His character and being. It is an ongoing process that has no end. I think this is one of the reasons why we will worship Him for all of eternity.....because we will continually be learning more and more of His character and being!
> ...


 
Yes, but you must see, that the Arminians do not place their trust and faith in Him, and Him alone! They place their trust in their own good works as well as count their faith as a good work. 

If it were as you say why was there a need for the Synod of Dort?

Also, the Arminians do not see things as you do and consider Calvinism an abhorent heresy! It is not as if they were coming to us with hats in their hands, pleading to be understood and to let into our fellowship.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2010)

Austin said:


> I'd be careful critiquing any of the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon), as these were affirmed by ecumenical councils (which we as catholic Christians also affirm). Remember, the men who drafted these were within shouting distance of the Apostolic era, and what they affirmed is the universal ("catholic") Christian faith.
> 
> As a side note, I was in attendance this morning at a 'Bible Church.' When it came time for the recitation of the Creed (I was, frankly, surprised that they did it!), they announced the Apostles' Creed. My normal practice is to close my eyes and recite it, as I find that I am thereby able to reflect more perfectly on the words. As I began, I was immediately thrown off balance. Their version was something like this:
> 
> ...


 
I'm not critiquing the creed but pointing out that it is not Scripture per se, so they are not technically infallible. They can err. The final line of the Athanasian creed, "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved", although helpful for me to distinguish truth from heresy, I would be hard pressed to argue this line from scripture. The creed serves mainly as a safeguard, an overstatement. I don't think Peter or Paul had quite as developed an understanding of the Trinity as the creed defines, but are they out of 'catholic faith'? 

another interesting point is that the original Nicene creed, ratified at the council of 325 did not include the _filioque_ (..."[Holy Spirit] proceeds from the Father _and the Son_"). Hence the controvery when the western church decided to add it. One would think that only an ecumenical council could change it. So if one is to go by the ecumenical councils, one should not recite "and the son". On that note, we Protestants do not confess any council after Chalcedon, even though there 7 in total where the Church spoke with (essentially) one voice. All this to say that the councils, though extremely helpful, are not divine revelation.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

Nova said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be careful critiquing any of the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon), as these were affirmed by ecumenical councils (which we as catholic Christians also affirm). Remember, the men who drafted these were within shouting distance of the Apostolic era, and what they affirmed is the universal ("catholic") Christian faith.
> ...


 
I absolutely agree with you that the councils are not divine revelation. 

However, I thoroughly disagree with you when you think that neither "Peter [n]or Paul had quite as developed an understanding of the Trinity as the creed defines." Now if you mean that they did not have the same definition or understanding I would have to agree with you-maybe. However, if you think that they did not have an in-depth understanding of the Trinity, then I would have to disagree with you. That would be presumption on your part because we do not fully know what these two Apostles of God did or did not know or understand concerning any doctrine of God. We can only go by what Holy Scriptures reveal to us. The creeds were meant to be a standard as to what the churches then believed according to what they understood Scripture to mean. We do not know the extent to which the Holy Spirit was guiding them. If you were to examine these early creeds it was more what the Trinity was understood to *not* be and not an exhaustive Trinitarian theology. They were trying their best to create guidelines as to where the church could and could not go as far as teaching and believing the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnate Christ.

We have nothing better and probably will never have. We dare not work beyond what the early creeds declared (or not be cognizant of what they developed) and if we make an attempt it is to our peril.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2010)

Richard, surely you believe that doctrine has, in fact, developed. Yes, we can be quite confident of Trinitarian theology, as it has come down to us, but this took many decades and many bitter arguments and opposing points of view to arrive at what we have now. Nicea itself ended with essentially an imperial decision, Ephesus was filled with underhanded schemes (in my opinion). It wasn't all that pristine. What Paul and Peter knew we can never know for sure, so yes, I'm making an assumption that we probably know more than they may have. I'm assuming this because if it were as clear to them as it is to us, the might have taught about it and the early church wouldn't have reinvented the wheel.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

Nova said:


> Richard, surely you believe that doctrine has, in fact, developed. Yes, we can be quite confident of Trinitarian theology, as it has come down to us, but this took many decades and many bitter arguments and opposing points of view to arrive at what we have now. Nicea itself ended with essentially an imperial decision, Ephesus was filled with underhanded schemes (in my opinion). It wasn't all that pristine. What Paul and Peter knew we can never know for sure, so yes, I'm making an assumption that we probably know more than they may have. I'm assuming this because if it were as clear to them as it is to us, the might have taught about it and the early church wouldn't have reinvented the wheel.


 
We may have more sophisticated and elaborate ways to express ourselves regarding the Trinity and the Incarnation but it is only because of the prior work of these early councils. We stand upon their shoulders just like Francis Turretine stood on the shoulders of Calvin and many others.

No, absolutely not, you may not assume that we know more than the Apostles! They were used as God's instruments in the process of divine revelation. They were not mere, non-cognizant, robots during the process of "Theopneustos." The Apostle Paul was in the desert for 3 years being taught by God and before his rebirth he was a student of Gamaliel. You don't seem to get that! Everything else that is not Scripture and came after is *derivative*.

You can say that about the early church fathers whether Greek or Latin but you cannot say that about the Apostles!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Sep 13, 2010)

I must confess that when I was an Arminian I did in fact worship a different god, that being myself. The "Grounds" for my justification at that time in my mind and heart were my own actions. I was "saved" because "I..."

I had accepted and believed a perverted gospel. The only faith I exercise was in myself, although I used the "language" of the bible to describe this. I would have stated that I was saved by faith, but did in fact knowingly mean by this, I was saved by my decision, choice and prayer. I demanded it from a god who imperfectly lacked the ability to secure my salvation. 

I do not believe this to be the case or experience of all Arminians therefore I would not make such generalized statements to imply that they all worshipped another god.

I have met Arminians that I believe to be worshipping the same God as we. The Object of their faith is Christ and His finished work. 

This is what I tend to look for in the Arminian "*What is the object of your faith?*"


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

It is not about what Arminians believe or understand as individuals. It is what organized churches or groups that are Arminian actually teach and what they preach against the Sovereign Lord of Glory. I have no problems with individuals and where they are in their faith. It is what they are being taught and what they say, that Calvinism (what I consider an accurate and faithful account of Scriptures) is a heresy and that it is a false gospel.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2010)

Calvinus said:


> No, absolutely not, you may not assume that we know more than the Apostles! They were used as God's instruments in the process of divine revelation. They were not mere, non-cognizant, robots during the process of "Theopneustos." The Apostle Paul was in the desert for 3 years being taught by God and before his rebirth he was a student of Gamaliel. You don't seem to get that! Everything else that is not Scripture and came after is *derivative*.
> 
> You can say that about the early church fathers whether Greek or Latin but you cannot say that about the Apostles!


 
I think you are making a mistake as to the infallibility of the Apostles, compared to the Fathers for example. First, as human beings, BOTH were fallible. The Apostles were infallible ONLY IN SO FAR AS their *inspired writings *are concerned. But as people, they were far from perfect, and their thinking was not always sound. Consider the prime example of Peter, who messed up in his application of the gospel during the controversy with the Judaizers, and had to be reprimanded by Paul. You are coming close to deifying the Apostles and granting them exhaustive knowledge when this is totally unnecessary. They were limited in their understanding for the simple reason that they were human beings living in an early stage of the development of doctrine. They wrote "occasional letters" on topics of significance to the early church. We can be confident that they would not have disagreed with our understanding of Trinity, but you must appreciate the amount of work that went into deriving that doctrine from scripture.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

Nova said:


> Calvinus said:
> 
> 
> > No, absolutely not, you may not assume that we know more than the Apostles! They were used as God's instruments in the process of divine revelation. They were not mere, non-cognizant, robots during the process of "Theopneustos." The Apostle Paul was in the desert for 3 years being taught by God and before his rebirth he was a student of Gamaliel. You don't seem to get that! Everything else that is not Scripture and came after is *derivative*.
> ...


 
Peter's errors were pointed out to him by Paul concerning his hypocrisy toward the gentiles and Peter admitted his error. However, that does not mean that what is revealed in Scripture about what they said about the Trinity was in error or incorrect. If we go by your criteria then everything in Scripture is suspect and is therefore not inspired (or rather Theopneustos). Yes these men were fallible and did make mistakes however, that is plain in scriptures and is pointed out in scriptures - they were corrected. There are no instances where Paul or Peter or others of the Apostles were mistaken and then corrected on their New Testament witness to the Trinity. As to the amount of work done to derive our doctrine of the Trinity from what the apostles said in Scripture - you get no argument from me. However, that work is derivative, it is based on what is said in Scripture, Old and New Testament. But what is derived after Revelation is purely man made and not revealed by God on the same level as was revealed in Scripture through the instrumentality of men.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2010)

Richard, I agree with you that whatever scripture says is true on the given topic. To clarify, my argument about the Trinity is NOT that scripture is wrong concerning this, but that the scriptures (and the apostles who wrote them) knows of the doctrine of Trinity only in seed form. The apostles had not yet conceived of this concept in the same refined way the Fathers did. When you say,


> But what is derived after Revelation is purely man made and not revealed by God on the same level as was revealed in Scripture through the instrumentality of men.


 you are exactly making the point I was making: if Trinity and the creeds are derivative, they are not infallible in the way scripture is.

Going back to Athanasius, the creed may say that those who don't believe the creed in its entirety cannot be saved, but this is the church speaking, not biblical revelation.


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 13, 2010)

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 

In Suk, you are somehow tearing the apostles' preaching from their writings. That won't do. Somehow, when they are preaching before men, their sermons in verbal form are fallible, but when they put it down on paper using ink, their words magically become infallible. That's magic, not inspiration. The apostles were not sinless, so Peter's occasions of sins have got nothing to do with this. The verses above do not make such distinctions, so please don't do make such distinctions. You make the logical leap that the apostles are being deified if we claim that they had infallible preaching ministries. Well, they were also able to perform miracles, and that does not mean that they were deities. The scriptures are plainly against the heresies such as Nestorianism and Arianism, and it is not the creeds that condemn adherents to such, but their unbelief of the scriptures. If you are trying to argue that one can reject the trinity, or hold that Jesus not was 100% man and 100% God, and still be saved, the burden of proof is on you.

With regards to the OP, my sentiments are that if the object of worship for an Arminian is his faith, then he is not saved because his faith is not in Christ alone through faith alone. But if the object of worship for an Arminian is Christ, meaning he is an inconsistent Arminian as are the vast majority of Arminians, then he may very well be a believer, albeit with huge misunderstandings about the workings of God in salvation. When one's faith is in faith itself and not in Christ, surely he is not building his faith on the Rock. Dr McMahon's article is hugely helpful in explaining the nuances, and it is curious why no one is talking about it.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> 2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
> 
> John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
> 
> ...


 
Actually I made no mention of the Apostle's preaching as something opposed to their writings. There's nothing that can really be said about, since no record of their preaching exists. If you have a copy, send it to me! My original point was that they probably didn't have the Trinity worked out as detailed as we do today. That's all.

I agree with you that "The scriptures are plainly against the heresies such as Nestorianism and Arianism", but on the matter of the Trinity, if it were so clear, why is it not until Tertullian in the 2nd century that we even hear of the word? again, I am NOT denying the Trinity or anything of the sort. I am simply asserting that it takes some time and effort for doctrine to develop to its present form, and it's OK! even if the biblical authors didn't necessarily see it coming in quite the same way.


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 13, 2010)

Nova said:


> I think you are making a mistake as to the infallibility of the Apostles, compared to the Fathers for example. First, as human beings, BOTH were fallible. The Apostles were infallible ONLY IN SO FAR AS their inspired writings are concerned. But as people, they were far from perfect, and their thinking was not always sound. Consider the prime example of Peter, who messed up in his application of the gospel during the controversy with the Judaizers, and had to be reprimanded by Paul. You are coming close to deifying the Apostles and granting them exhaustive knowledge when this is totally unnecessary.



I gathered what I said based on what you have said here. What the apostles thought was right, they preached accordingly. Unless now you want to make yet another distinction between their preaching and thoughts, hence accusing them of possibly lying during their ministries. I don't need recorded audio sermons of what they said, as the scriptures are sufficient to guide me by faith to the conclusion that their preaching was infallible. The doctrine of the trinity in its current wording may not have been found earlier, but that does not mean that the substance of it was any different earlier. The word never arose before the second century because there was no need for something like that to describe the substance of what was already being taught. If you are going to claim that there exists a form of saving faith which is not founded upon the same substance of our understanding of the doctrine of the trinity, as previously mentioned, the onus is on you to prove it to be such. By the way, if it is indeed your claim that the Athanasian Creed errs when claiming that it speaks of people who hold on to heresies being unsaved, please be aware that this is contra-confessional and not allowed on this board. If that is not your claim, then why even talk about trinity in the thread? This thread was regarding whether Arminianism is sufficient to condemn one to eternal damnation.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 13, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> I gathered what I said based on what you have said here. What the apostles thought was right, they preached accordingly. Unless now you want to make yet another distinction between their preaching and thoughts, hence accusing them of possibly lying during their ministries.
> You are severely misrepresenting me here. I don't need recorded audio sermons of what they said, as the scriptures are sufficient to guide me by faith to the conclusion that their preaching was infallible. The doctrine of the trinity in its current wording may not have been found earlier, but that does not mean that the substance of it was any different earlier. The word never arose before the second century because there was no need for something like that to describe the substance of what was already being taught. If you are going to claim that there exists a form of saving faith which is not founded upon the same substance of our understanding of the doctrine of the trinity, as previously mentioned, the onus is on you to prove it to be such. By the way, if it is indeed your claim that the Athanasian Creed errs when claiming that it speaks of people who hold on to heresies being unsaved, please be aware that this is contra-confessional and not allowed on this board. If that is not your claim, then why even talk about trinity in the thread? This thread was regarding whether Arminianism is sufficient to condemn one to eternal damnation.


 
You are severely misinterpreting the meaning of fallible, and misrepresenting what I've been saying. When I say the apostles (as persons) were fallible, it means they were CAPABLE of making wrong judgments, and thinking wrong things. This was admitted by Richard (Calvinus) when he said, " Yes these men were fallible and did make mistakes however, that is plain in scriptures and is pointed out in scriptures - they were corrected." No where did I suggest that the apostles might have lied, nor that the Athanasian creed erred, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is baseless (so be careful when laying your charge). All I was saying was that Athanasius' orthodoxy is a fuller, more developed doctrine than what the apostles had at their disposal, and it is anachronistic to say that they apostles believed the Athanisian creed. The categories of thought they had at the time were different from what the creed stipulates as necessary for salvation, and that is OK. You even admitted that "The word [Trinity] never arose before the second century because there was no need for something like that to describe the substance of what was already being taught." Exactly. I agree. There was no need, because the concern had not yet arisen. the creed is for _us_, sitting on _this _side of the debate; it does not need to forced on them as if they were omniscient and already had it down pat.

Now, to tie this back to the OP. I would argue that there have been many a regenerate Christian, living in various stages of church history who may not have had as precise an understanding of God's sovereignty as we have. The Fathers for example tended to emphasize free will because they needed to respond to the stoic and fatalistic philosophies of their day which opposed the faith. This doesn't necessarily mean they worshipped another deity, nor that they are outside salvation.


----------



## Idelette (Sep 13, 2010)

Nova said:


> Now, to tie this back to the OP. I would argue that there have been many a regenerate Christian, living in various stages of church history who may not have had as precise an understanding of God's sovereignty as we have. The Fathers for example tended to emphasize free will because they needed to respond to the stoic and fatalistic philosophies of their day which opposed the faith. This doesn't necessarily mean they worshipped another deity, nor that they are outside salvation.


 
Thank you, this is exactly what my thoughts are as well! Anyone that studies church history in-depth, will see that it took time to develop doctrines and theology. No doctrine came to fruition overnight, including justification. In fact, if I remember correctly, the deity of Christ alone was developed over hundreds of years. We today, have a much more developed idea of who God is than even the early church or the days of Israel. And yet, Scripture says, _"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."- John 8:5_6 I doubt that Abraham had a fully worked out doctrine of justification, but He looked towards the Messiah and the Scriptures say that he was made righteous!

Simply because one goes to an Arminian church and isn't exposed to Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace, doesn't necessarily imply that they must be adding to their salvation by works. That may very well be the case in some instances, but I don't believe it is generally the case. Ultimately, to say that we as Calvinists worship another God implies that _WE _are the true Church and that only _WE_ are God's people. And I think that's pretty arrogant in my opinion! There are plenty of Arminians that I know that have a biblical soteriology and rest in Christ alone for their salvation. And on the other hand, I know plenty of Calvinists that add to their salvation by resting in _THEIR_ faithfulness to the covenant promises rather than faith in _Christ'S_ faithfulness to the covenant promises. But, that's a topic for another discussion  Ultimately, we can't take liberty to assume what is within people's hearts based on the lack of understanding or teaching that they have. As long as Arminians are truly seeking the Truth and are seeking to worship the God of the Bible than we are indeed worshipping the one and same God. If they are seeking their own way or another god, then they will reap what they sow. We just need to remember that God works even through flawed or partial theology. My point is that we _ALL_ see dimly now, but there will come a day when we will all fully understand!


----------



## carlgobelman (Sep 14, 2010)

I recently wrote a blog article on a similar topic in which I was asked whether or not a five-point Arminian is truly saved. My basic answer is "yes" and I conclude the article by saying:



> So, back to the original question, can a 5-point Arminian be truly saved? Absolutely! God will save those whom he has chosen to save, and no human theology will hinder him (Matthew 19:26). However, a defective theology (and Arminianism is a defective theology) obscures rather than reveals the true gospel of Jesus Christ.



Arminianism is a defective theology. If people are saved in Arminian churches, it is in spite of their Arminian theology.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 14, 2010)

> After the Synod convened in 1619, they gave the following censure by unanimous decision: They seriously and responsibly examined the Arminian tenants, “condemned them as unscriptural, pestilential errors,” and *pronounced those who held and published them to be “enemies of the faith of the Belgic churches, and corrupters of the true religion.”* They also *deposed the Arminian ministers, excluded them and their followers from the communion of the church, suppressed their religious assemblies,* and by the aid of the civil government, *which confirmed all their acts, sent a number of the clergy of that party, and those who adhered to them, into banishment.* They did not treat them as reprobate, but as those under ecclesiastical discipline. Arminianism had been banished from the land, though it thrived secretly, until a later time when it began to emerge and flourish again. It has now, for all intents and purposes, become the majority religious view of the contemporary church today. The American church overall has embraced the secular man’s religion.
> 
> What does Arminianism teach? *Is the “god” of Arminianism the God of the Bible? No. Arminius did not plagiarize the bible; instead, he fabricated a brand new deity, or idol, for men to worship. The “god” of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible. For Arminius’ “god” loves everyone equally, and sent his “Son” to die for all men equally. This “god” did not decree the salvation of anyone in particular, and “the Christ” of Arminianism did not die for anyone in particular.* Instead Arminius’ “god” decreed and his “Christ” died for making a “way” of salvation. The Bible, in refuting this, teaches quite a different God. God has predestined only the elect to salvation. These are those for who He “so loved” and “gave” in His beloved Son Jesus Christ (John 3:16). The Bible depicts Christ as the one who fulfills the works of the Covenant of Redemption and bestows, unilaterally, this effectual work in the Covenant of Grace through the power of the Holy Sprit only to those for whom He died. This is the basic Old Testament concept of sacrifice and atonement. Sacrifice and atonement are given on behalf of a particular person, or for the nation of Israel. It did not extend beyond those bounds. Jesus Christ died for His people, the elect. These are those that the Father has elected before the foundation of the world, and those He has predestined to everlasting life. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, “These …men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (John 10:14-16, 27-28; 13:18; 17:2, 6, 9-12; 2 Tim. 2:19).” God is the ever powerful God who not only plans out the redemption of men, but actually secures that redemption through ordained means. The Westminster Confession of Faith continues when it says, “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace” (Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:28-30; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:9; Rom. 9:11, 13, 15-16; see Eph. 1:5, 9, 11; 2:8-9; Eph. 1:6, 12). The “god” of Arminianism is impotent and unable to save anyone. Instead, the “god” of Arminianism “hopes” that some will come to Him, and “hopes” that some will be saved through His Son. In this way, Arminianism teaches that it is theologically and hypothetically possible that no one would come, and no one would be saved. Here, Arminius’ “god” relies on man to come to Him, and find salvation. The Bible speaks differently: Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.” Psalm 7:11, “God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” Psalm 11:5, “The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.” Matthew 11:27, “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” John 17:9-10, “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.” Acts 2:47, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” Acts 13:48, “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Romans 9:10-13, “And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Romans 9:21-24, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Ephesians 1:3-6, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.”
> 
> Arminius also taught that his “god” can be frustrated by the will of man because men choose their own destiny and that “god” allows them to do what they want to do without interfering. Not only is this “god” later to be deemed the “god of deism”, but it demonstrates that Arminius’ “god” plans salvation in a way that may not be effectuated. *This “god” has offered salvation, but cannot actually bring about the happiness of the creature since man is autonomous and has, as Arminius taught, “a free will.” This means that man’s neutrality (denying total depravity) in “willing anything” is based on a choice that is never inclined toward good or evil.*



Can the above be refuted?

If we follow what the confessions teach, then Arminians are to be seen as under discipline, correct? They are 'enemies of the faith', according to the bodies whose confessions we hold so dear. They were, by the ecclesiastical bodies of the time, deposed, banished in some cases, and their meetings suppressed. Instead, we today say that they are in error and sit next to them and even attend their meetings in some cases. _Was that Synod in error in their unity and severity of their rejection of this heresy?_ Can someone answer this please?

I am not at all saying that we should renew this 'contract' of persecution upon Arminians, not at all. But we claim these confessions as our own, yet don't seem to be able to stomach the practical application of their findings. No, they did not treat them as reprobate, but somehow we are more harsh on an unrepentant adulterer than we are on an unrepentant 'enemy of the faith'. Why is that? Arminianism proclaims a God and Christ not of the Bible - that much is clear. How should this be viewed by confessional Christians? And should we deny them communion as was done previously? If not, can someone please tell me why not? This was the practice of the church that took so seriously the heresy when it became known. Why do we not?


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 14, 2010)

Nova said:


> If one is to argue that the Arminian god is not the True God, then he had better be ready to provide the criteria that determines true from false: what's the point of no return? Athanasius attempted to draw the line in the sand when he wrote:
> 43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
> but he was capable of erring, so was Calvin, so are we.
> 
> Let God alone be judge.





Nova said:


> I think you are making a mistake as to the infallibility of the Apostles, compared to the Fathers for example. First, as human beings, BOTH were fallible. The Apostles were infallible ONLY IN SO FAR AS their inspired writings are concerned. But as people, they were far from perfect, and their thinking was not always sound. Consider the prime example of Peter, who messed up in his application of the gospel during the controversy with the Judaizers, and had to be reprimanded by Paul. You are coming close to deifying the Apostles and granting them exhaustive knowledge when this is totally unnecessary



In Suk, if in these quotes you are not saying that the Apostles did not have infallible preaching or that the Athanasian creed may have erred in proclaiming those who do not adhere to it to be unsaved (hence effectively undermining the creed), then please pardon me for reading that into these quotes. If you are, then just let it be known that I strongly disagree and believe in the infallible preaching of the Apostles and the entirety of the Athanasian creed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 14, 2010)

Just an observation but it seems we have to go through this exercise every so often to speak in the abstract about "Arminians" and whether they are saved and worship the God of the Scriptures. I give no quarter to false doctrine as essentially destructive to the soul but the more basic question is whether or not we take men, as we meet them, and instruct them in the things of God.

When you actually take the time to love men and women who have been starved and misled by undershepherds who are derelict in their duties to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, it changes your perspective about them. Your true desire, borne of a love that reflects the love of God Who loves the unlovable, is to be a beggar for grace telling another starving man where to find Bread.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 14, 2010)

> When you actually take the time to love men and women who have been starved and misled by undershepherds who are derelict in their duties to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, it changes your perspective about them. Your true desire, borne of a love that reflects the love of God Who loves the unlovable, is to be a beggar for grace telling another starving man where to find Bread.



Amen! But when the man, after repeated, loving instruction, insists on going back to the dog's vomit, where does that leave you? Do we allow such poison in the church, or do we take action (as a body, through one's consistory or session, as it is fit)? We see the action of the churches of the Synod of Dordt, do we say that they were denying the water of life to the thirsting, or that unrepentant heretics were dealt with by church as they should have been? That is my question.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 14, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> > When you actually take the time to love men and women who have been starved and misled by undershepherds who are derelict in their duties to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, it changes your perspective about them. Your true desire, borne of a love that reflects the love of God Who loves the unlovable, is to be a beggar for grace telling another starving man where to find Bread.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen! But when the man, after repeated, loving instruction, insists on going back to the dog's vomit, where does that leave you? Do we allow such poison in the church, or do we take action (as a body, through one's consistory or session, as it is fit)? We see the action of the churches of the Synod of Dordt, do we say that they were denying the water of life to the thirsting, or that unrepentant heretics were dealt with by church as they should have been? That is my question.


 
That is not a question to be answered in the abstract about "Arminians" but is to be decided, case by case, concerning _disciples_ within a specific congregation and all the circumstances that lead up to it.


----------



## jayce475 (Sep 14, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Just an observation but it seems we have to go through this exercise every so often to speak in the abstract about "Arminians" and whether they are saved and worship the God of the Scriptures. I give no quarter to false doctrine as essentially destructive to the soul but the more basic question is whether or not we take men, as we meet them, and instruct them in the things of God.
> 
> When you actually take the time to love men and women who have been starved and misled by undershepherds who are derelict in their duties to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, it changes your perspective about them. Your true desire, borne of a love that reflects the love of God Who loves the unlovable, is to be a beggar for grace telling another starving man where to find Bread.


 
We do treat clergy and laypeople differently, don't we? In as much as a member of the congregation does not propagate false doctrines, of which Arminanism is one, we ought to gently instruct and lead him towards maturity. On the other hand, if it is clergy, i.e. a false teacher, there needs to be church discipline.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 14, 2010)

> We do treat clergy and laypeople differently, don't we? In as much as a member of the congregation does not propagate false doctrines, of which Arminanism is one, we ought to gently instruct and lead him towards maturity. On the other hand, if it is clergy, i.e. a false teacher, there needs to be church discipline.



That's just it - I am asking about the leaders of this movement, or about this movement as a whole, not about the individual. The lost we treat as the lost - there is gentle correction done in love, not discipline. But the leaders thereof, those hardened against the gospel, that should be a different story (I don't think there would have been any difference back in 1618).


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 15, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> > After the Synod convened in 1619, they gave the following censure by unanimous decision: They seriously and responsibly examined the Arminian tenants, “condemned them as unscriptural, pestilential errors,” and *pronounced those who held and published them to be “enemies of the faith of the Belgic churches, and corrupters of the true religion.”* They also *deposed the Arminian ministers, excluded them and their followers from the communion of the church, suppressed their religious assemblies,* and by the aid of the civil government, *which confirmed all their acts, sent a number of the clergy of that party, and those who adhered to them, into banishment.* They did not treat them as reprobate, but as those under ecclesiastical discipline. Arminianism had been banished from the land, though it thrived secretly, until a later time when it began to emerge and flourish again. It has now, for all intents and purposes, become the majority religious view of the contemporary church today. The American church overall has embraced the secular man’s religion.
> >
> > What does Arminianism teach? *Is the “god” of Arminianism the God of the Bible? No. Arminius did not plagiarize the bible; instead, he fabricated a brand new deity, or idol, for men to worship. The “god” of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible. For Arminius’ “god” loves everyone equally, and sent his “Son” to die for all men equally. This “god” did not decree the salvation of anyone in particular, and “the Christ” of Arminianism did not die for anyone in particular.* Instead Arminius’ “god” decreed and his “Christ” died for making a “way” of salvation. The Bible, in refuting this, teaches quite a different God. God has predestined only the elect to salvation. These are those for who He “so loved” and “gave” in His beloved Son Jesus Christ (John 3:16). The Bible depicts Christ as the one who fulfills the works of the Covenant of Redemption and bestows, unilaterally, this effectual work in the Covenant of Grace through the power of the Holy Sprit only to those for whom He died. This is the basic Old Testament concept of sacrifice and atonement. Sacrifice and atonement are given on behalf of a particular person, or for the nation of Israel. It did not extend beyond those bounds. Jesus Christ died for His people, the elect. These are those that the Father has elected before the foundation of the world, and those He has predestined to everlasting life. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, “These …men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (John 10:14-16, 27-28; 13:18; 17:2, 6, 9-12; 2 Tim. 2:19).” God is the ever powerful God who not only plans out the redemption of men, but actually secures that redemption through ordained means. The Westminster Confession of Faith continues when it says, “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace” (Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:28-30; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:9; Rom. 9:11, 13, 15-16; see Eph. 1:5, 9, 11; 2:8-9; Eph. 1:6, 12). The “god” of Arminianism is impotent and unable to save anyone. Instead, the “god” of Arminianism “hopes” that some will come to Him, and “hopes” that some will be saved through His Son. In this way, Arminianism teaches that it is theologically and hypothetically possible that no one would come, and no one would be saved. Here, Arminius’ “god” relies on man to come to Him, and find salvation. The Bible speaks differently: Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.” Psalm 7:11, “God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” Psalm 11:5, “The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.” Matthew 11:27, “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” John 17:9-10, “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.” Acts 2:47, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” Acts 13:48, “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Romans 9:10-13, “And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Romans 9:21-24, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Ephesians 1:3-6, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.”
> >
> ...


 
An excellent post. You were able to find that information on the Synod of Dort that I was unable to do - I am very busy with graduate work (PhD). You were able to articulate what I have been struggling with. 

We go out of our way to be conciliatory with enemies of our Reformed faith and we bend over backwards afraid to offend the Muslims who are attacking us directly and using "toleration" and "peace" as weapons that they turn against us when they believe that they are in a position of strength. 

It is one thing to treat those that are struggling with their faith with compassion and loving-kindness not knowing their status before God, it is another to make common cause with overt enemies of our Reformed confessions. We should not have to tolerate enemies of the Reformed faith like the Arminians who threatened the churches in the Netherlands which required the assembling of the Synod of Dort. It is remarkable how the PC agenda has crept into our churches and seminaries. Our (Reformed) house is burning around our ears, let us stop being paralyzed by our fear of offending those who hate us, they are going to be offended by the Gospel which is a stumbling block anyway, rather let us be more manly and less effeminate in our stance, witness, and calling. 

We must never retreat before those who posing in the guise of innocent inquiry are really wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## Bern (Sep 15, 2010)

I really do feel sorry for Arminians, many of whom are only Arminians because thats the only teaching they have ever had. When I first attended a church it was an independent evangelical church that is for the most part Arminian and charismatic with dispensational leanings. The only other type of church I knew in England was "dead Anglican" churches who even at that time were going in a very liberal direction, approving of homosexuals and women as ministers etc. So in my mind there were only two types of Christians, the false liberals and the genuine "lively" evangelical ones. I thought all genuine Christians were like the people in my church, and anyone who was not like that wasn't a true believer. For example, I thought that anyone who didn't understand "the truth about national Isael" was a heretic and liberal.

When you are saved in a church like that (many of my friends still go there) all you know is what you are told (especially if you are a totally unchurched worldling like I was), and you only ever listen to teachers or other Christians who believe the same as you.

My friends think Calvinism is too hard line and think I've gone off the rails because of what I believe, mainly because they are unable to objectively stud the scriptures for themselves. I still consider them Christians, but there is a certain level of contradiction in their lives: they pray like Calvinists, but behave like Arminians. Do they worship the same God as me? Yes. Are they decieved, needing more light as to how wonderful the gospel really is? Yes.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 15, 2010)

Bern said:


> I really do feel sorry for Arminians, many of whom are only Arminians because thats the only teaching they have ever had. When I first attended a church it was an independent evangelical church that is for the most part Arminian and charismatic with dispensational leanings. The only other type of church I knew in England was "dead Anglican" churches who even at that time were going in a very liberal direction, approving of homosexuals and women as ministers etc. So in my mind there were only two types of Christians, the false liberals and the genuine "lively" evangelical ones. I thought all genuine Christians were like the people in my church, and anyone who was not like that wasn't a true believer. For example, I thought that anyone who didn't understand "the truth about national Isael" was a heretic and liberal.
> 
> When you are saved in a church like that (many of my friends still go there) all you know is what you are told (especially if you are a totally unchurched worldling like I was), and you only ever listen to teachers or other Christians who believe the same as you.
> 
> My friends think Calvinism is too hard line and think I've gone off the rails because of what I believe, mainly because they are unable to objectively stud the scriptures for themselves. I still consider them Christians, but there is a certain level of contradiction in their lives: they pray like Calvinists, but behave like Arminians. Do they worship the same God as me? Yes. Are they decieved, needing more light as to how wonderful the gospel really is? Yes.



Good post. I often wonder why The Lord allows all of us to err on the side of error. It is amazing how He can use bad for good in all of our lives which includes belonging to a denomination that obviously is in gross error or allow Christians who truly believe, I know that is redundant, who the only common thing we appear to have in common is believing in Jesus. One of my favorite analogies is how crazy uncle Fred is really crazy but he is still my uncle by blood and nothing will ever change that. Same as to those who are adopted into His family which is even thicker than blood.


----------



## Bern (Sep 15, 2010)

I was reading "The mystery of providence" by John Flavel this morning. Its an excellent book that brings home the realities of how God's providence works for our good, always with the end result of our humbling and Christ's exaltation. If I hadn't been in an Arminian church for many years I would not have seen the immence glory of the true gospel, especially the DOG. The way my Christian walk has played out has made me realise just how totally dependent I am on God for every bit of progress in my walk with Him. I was going round in circles as an Arminian, never getting anywhere in terms of my understanding of the bible or my practical holiness. God, when He introduced me to reformed (biblical!) Christianity showed me such a marked contrast between my previous understanding of who He is and my new understanding that I was humbled in a way I would not have been unless I had tried in my own effort to attain to spiritual maturity.

I know thats a lot of waffling above, but I just can't decribe how I felt when I discovered who God really is. It was like being born again.... AGAIN... and sometimes I do wonder if that was the moment of my true conversion, rather than years before as I first imagined. God truly does deserve our praise and adoration, who else could ever work out events so perfectly with such infinite love, mercy, justice, holiness and wisdom?!


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Sep 16, 2010)

Idelette said:


> Simply because one goes to an Arminian church and isn't exposed to Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace, doesn't necessarily imply that they must be adding to their salvation by works. That may very well be the case in some instances, but I don't believe it is generally the case. Ultimately, to say that we as Calvinists worship another God implies that WE are the true Church and that only WE are God's people. And I think that's pretty arrogant in my opinion! There are plenty of Arminians that I know that have a biblical soteriology and rest in Christ alone for their salvation. And on the other hand, I know plenty of Calvinists that add to their salvation by resting in THEIR faithfulness to the covenant promises rather than faith in Christ'S faithfulness to the covenant promises. But, that's a topic for another discussion Ultimately, we can't take liberty to assume what is within people's hearts based on the lack of understanding or teaching that they have. As long as Arminians are truly seeking the Truth and are seeking to worship the God of the Bible than we are indeed worshipping the one and same God. If they are seeking their own way or another god, then they will reap what they sow. We just need to remember that God works even through flawed or partial theology. My point is that we ALL see dimly now, but there will come a day when we will all fully understand!



Only God knows our hearts. Thank you sister.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Just an observation but it seems we have to go through this exercise every so often to speak in the abstract about "Arminians" and whether they are saved and worship the God of the Scriptures. I give no quarter to false doctrine as essentially destructive to the soul but the more basic question is whether or not we take men, as we meet them, and instruct them in the things of God.
> ...


 
As I noted already, it's not that I'm denying the existence and need of Church discipline but we do not discipline _concepts_ and _hypotheticals_ within the Church, we discipline people. The problem with these discussions is that they create an abstract concept of a so-called "Arminian" who is tried and convicted in a thought experiment and excommunicated from a Church. This then creates a convenient "bin" for people to place such individuals when they meet real people that align, in their minds, to the concept of "Arminian".

I don't begin this way. I begin with 2 Tim 2:24-25.


----------



## cih1355 (Sep 16, 2010)

One can be an Arminian and still believe that his faith and obedience are not the basis upon which he is justified. He can still believe that he has no goodness in his heart.


----------

