# Should we pray with Arminians?



## Blue Tick

This may be a difficult question, but should confessional reformed Christians pray with Arminians who are not members in good standing in a church? Basically, non-denominational churches that have no form of membership just a "come as you are" philosophy . I would like to differentiate between _with_ and_ for_. If we are praying _with_ Arminians it seems we are approving of their beliefs and their doctrine. Rather, when we are praying_ for_ we are asking God to grant them repentance and understanding.


----------



## Arch2k

I think we should pray FOR them!


----------



## Archlute

Yes, as believing brothers and sisters, we should always feel charitably towards praying with them. 

If they are believers in Christ they are then members of the body by virtue of their union with him. The outward form of their congregation's ecclesiology may not reflect well upon a proper understanding of formal church membership practices, but they are members of Christ's body nonetheless.

There is a tendency in denominations, such as the OPC/URC, to press the issue of "members in good standing" too far, and to make it a way of screening out from Christian fellowship those who do not conform to any number of practices/thoughts in line with their own denomination's standards.

We should never forget that our true unity lies in Christ; you can have one who is a "member in good standing" who has a cold and hypocritical heart, and is possibly unregenerate. I would rather pray with an Arminian brother for the former man's salvation/growth in grace than pray with the hypocritical "member in good standing" about the Arminian's coming into the light regarding the proper form of outward church membership.

There are any number of fellow Christian's whom I can pray with that are not in accord with a reformed understanding on various issues, that does not mean that I approve of their position, nor that I am partaking with them in their error. If that were so, Christ would have never seen fit to pray with his disciples. It would seem to be a significant sin against the love for the brethren to refuse to pray to our Father with them, all because of a matter of organizational practice.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Archlute said:


> Yes, as believing brothers and sisters, we should always feel charitably towards praying with them.
> 
> If they are believers in Christ they are then members of the body by virtue of their union with him. The outward form of their congregation's ecclesiology may not reflect well upon a proper understanding of formal church membership practices, but they are members of Christ's body nonetheless.
> 
> There is a tendency in denominations, such as the OPC/URC, to press the issue of "members in good standing" too far, and to make it a way of screening out from Christian fellowship those who do not conform to any number of practices/thoughts in line with their own denomination's standards.
> 
> We should never forget that our true unity lies in Christ; you can have one who is a "member in good standing" who has a cold and hypocritical heart, and is possibly unregenerate. I would rather pray with an Arminian brother for the former man's salvation/growth in grace than pray with the hypocritical "member in good standing" about the Arminian's coming into the light regarding the proper form of outward church membership.
> 
> There are any number of fellow Christian's whom I can pray with that are not in accord with a reformed understanding on various issues, that does not mean that I approve of their position, nor that I am partaking with them in their error. If that were so, Christ would have never seen fit to pray with his disciples. It would seem to be a significant sin against the love for the brethren to refuse to pray to our Father together over a matter of organizational practice.




 &


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Archlute said:


> Yes, as believing brothers and sisters, we should always feel charitably towards praying with them.
> 
> If they are believers in Christ they are then members of the body by virtue of their union with him. The outward form of their congregation's ecclesiology may not reflect well upon a proper understanding of formal church membership practices, but they are members of Christ's body nonetheless.
> 
> There is a tendency in denominations, such as the OPC/URC, to press the issue of "members in good standing" too far, and to make it a way of screening out from Christian fellowship those who do not conform to any number of practices/thoughts in line with their own denomination's standards.
> 
> We should never forget that our true unity lies in Christ; you can have one who is a "member in good standing" who has a cold and hypocritical heart, and is possibly unregenerate. I would rather pray with an Arminian brother for the former man's salvation/growth in grace than pray with the hypocritical "member in good standing" about the Arminian's coming into the light regarding the proper form of outward church membership.
> 
> There are any number of fellow Christian's whom I can pray with that are not in accord with a reformed understanding on various issues, that does not mean that I approve of their position, nor that I am partaking with them in their error. If that were so, Christ would have never seen fit to pray with his disciples. It would seem to be a significant sin against the love for the brethren to refuse to pray to our Father with them, all because of a matter of organizational practice.



We have a term for this amongst baptists. They're caled "baptist briders". I agree with your postion brother.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Lets get our ducks in a row here:Is Arminianim heresy? Are Arminians heretics? The answer to both questions is YES! Should we pray with heretics, No! Are all those whom are in the erring church Arminians? No! They are in error. Nonetheless, the error presents a problem. If the Jesus these people worship is not the Jesus of the scriptures, and typically, based upon the churches these people come out of, it is not, should we pray with them? I would say no. Where would you draw the line; How about someone who has a church that is a health and wealth theology; They tell you the same thing as these erring believers we are addressing here. How about the Church of Christ? They have the same theology essentially except they believe baptism is the synergism; same as these erring (for lack of a better word) Arminians. 

Where would you draw the line?


----------



## toddpedlar

Scott Bushey said:


> Lets get our ducks in a row here:Is Arminianim heresy? Are Arminians heretics? The answer to both questions is YES! Should we pray with heretics, No! Are all those whom are in the erring church Arminians? No! They are in error. Nonetheless, the error presents a problem. If the Jesus these people worship is not the Jesus of the scriptures, and typically, based upon the churches these people come out of, it is not, should we pray with them? I would say no. Where would you draw the line; How about someone who has a church that is a health and wealth theology; They tell you the same thing as these erring believers we are addressing here. How about the Church of Christ? They have the same theology essentially except they believe baptism is the synergism; same as these erring (for lack of a better word) Arminians.
> 
> Where would you draw the line?



Do you invite unbelievers to pray with you before meals?

Todd


----------



## MrMerlin777

Scott Bushey said:


> Lets get our ducks in a row here:Is Arminianim heresy? Are Arminians heretics? The answer to both questions is YES! Should we pray with heretics, No! Are all those whom are in the erring church Arminians? No! They are in error. Nonetheless, the error presents a problem. If the Jesus these people worship is not the Jesus of the scriptures, and typically, based upon the churches these people come out of, it is not, should we pray with them? I would say no. Where would you draw the line; How about someone who has a church that is a health and wealth theology; They tell you the same thing as these erring believers we are addressing here. How about the Church of Christ? They have the same theology essentially except they believe baptism is the synergism; same as these erring (for lack of a better word) Arminians.
> 
> Where would you draw the line?



Are all Arminians unsaved? Is one saved by proper understanding of the doctrines of grace or are they saved by faith in Christ? This is confusing to me basically you're saying I should never pray with my twin brother even though he is a Christian simply because he isn't a Calvinist, or my father or my mother or my late grandmother (who was a more godly woman than I'll probably ever be a godly man) simply because they were or are not 5 pointers.


----------



## ReformedWretch

BaptistInCrisis said:


> The term "Arminian" is tossed around so loosely that it is has become a brand name for those who do not believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace. If Arminianism is defined as that which was held to by the Remonstrants, then we may should be careful who we call Arminians. Words mean things.



I think that is and has been Scott's point here at the PB for a long time.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.

C.H. SPURGEON


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.
> 
> C.H. SPURGEON




I'll be the first to say it: If Wesley died holding to Arminian theology, the one that the remonstrants held to, the one that Dordt condemned, he perished without Christ. As well, I will add Mother Theresa and all her good works to the bunch.


----------



## chaz

Scott Bushey said:


> I'll be the first to say it: If Wesley died holding to Arminian theology, the one that the remonstrants held to, the one that Dordt condemned, he perished without Christ. As well, I will add Mother Theresa and all her good works to the bunch.


Salvation must've been sparse before the 14th and 15th centuries? I guess there won't be too many sold out stadiums in heaven.

Seriously, if you're that distinct in prayer, whom can you take the Lord's Supper with?


----------



## Scott Bushey

chaz said:


> Salvation must've been sparse before the 14th and 15th centuries? I guess there won't be too many sold out stadiums in heaven.



Why do you say that? You imply that the believers of that day were all in error? As well, where do you draw the line then? You imply God grades upon some curve.

God has always had a remnant stump.....



> Seriously, if you're that distinct in prayer, whom can you take the Lord's Supper with?




Our church practices closed communion


----------



## Arch2k

chaz said:


> Salvation must've been sparse before the 14th and 15th centuries? I guess there won't be too many sold out stadiums in heaven.
> 
> Seriously, if you're that distinct in prayer, whom can you take the Lord's Supper with?


 
The council of Orange and other like councils took the position of the same orthodoxy of Dort later. I think it is a mistake to make such a strong seperation between Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. Orthodoxy has always seen as Arminiansim as a return to Rome, and in the end, a return of Pelagius. A works/merit based salvation is no salvation at all. I however, have hope that the early church, while not perfect, recognized the unconditional nature of the gospel and made the same pronouncement against Pelagianism that Dort did against Arminianism.

For that matter, the church today is hardly as mild a Arminius. Rather, many would have their bibles edited to remove any reference to "predestined" if it were up to them.

Some good reading that will shed light on Arminianism:

Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism by by John L. Girardeau (A MUST read!)

And the nature of the church today being Pelagian in nature:

THE PELAGIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH by R.C. Sproul​


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I want to understand you correctly brother. Are you saying that one must have a complete understanding of the five points to be saved? This question is for Scott.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> I want to understand you correctly brother. Are you saying that one must have a complete understanding of the five points to be saved? This question is for Scott.



James,
Is Arminianism heresy?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Scott Bushey said:


> James,
> Is Arminianism heresy?



Yes. But so is dispensationalism. Are they lost too?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Scott:

What is the term for someone who is a disciple of Christ but is not a five point Calvinist?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> Yes. But so is dispensationalism. Are they lost too?




Dispensationalism is error; Aminianism is heresy.


----------



## Scott Bushey

ChristopherPaul said:


> Scott:
> 
> What is the term for someone who is a disciple of Christ but is not a five point Calvinist?



A growing believer. There is a big difference between someone who is growing in faith and one that holds to Arminianism.


----------



## Arch2k

Blueridge reformer said:


> I want to understand you correctly brother. Are you saying that one must have a complete understanding of the five points to be saved? This question is for Scott.


 
An understanding of Total Depravity is a prerequisite for understanding the unconditional nature of the gospel. Only when one understands that he can contribute nothing to his salvation, does he rest on Christ alone, which is the gospel in its simple, unconditional nature. This concept is not hard to grasp for those who have had their minds enlightened by the Holy Spirit to see their wretched condition, and their only remedy. But for those who have their minds darkened, they will always in the end attempt to save themselves (i.e. become their own savior).


----------



## Blueridge Believer

According to this line of reason, only five point Calvinists are saved. Anyone else, be they free will in any way it thier theology is eternally damned. All methodists, free will baptists, AOG, Wesleyan, Mennonite, Church of God, Pentecostal and other Independents have no hope. What about those like the IFB and Southern baptists and others like the Grace brethren who reject the first four points but accept the fifth?


----------



## Arch2k

ChristopherPaul said:


> Scott:
> 
> What is the term for someone who is a disciple of Christ but is not a five point Calvinist?


 
I like to call them gospelites. They have a bare understanding of the gospel, and its unconditional nature, but maybe have not yet come into contact with Calvinism etc. However, because of their understanding of the unconditionality of the gospel, it should not be hard for these to be persuaded of Calvinism as it should only logically follow from what they already believe.

I have met some of these, but not many (at least that I could discern).


----------



## Arch2k

Blueridge reformer said:


> According to this line of reason, only five point Calvinists are saved. Anyone else, be they free will in any way it thier theology is eternally damned. All methodists, free will baptists, AOG, Wesleyan, Mennonite, Church of God, Pentecostal and other Independents have no hope. What about those like the IFB and Southern baptists and others like the Grace brethren who reject the first four points but accept the fifth?


 
The path is narrow, and few there be that find it. We should not be suprised that the majority of the population, even those going by the name "christian" are not saved, and have no understanding of the gospel. Doesn't the Bible teach exactly this? Sad but true.


----------



## Arch2k

Scott Bushey said:


> A growing believer. There is a big difference between someone who is growing in faith and one that holds to Arminianism.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> According to this line of reason, only five point Calvinists are saved. Anyone else, be they free will in any way it thier theology is eternally damned. All methodists, free will baptists, AOG, Wesleyan, Mennonite, Church of God, Pentecostal and other Independents have no hope. What about those like the IFB and Southern baptists and others like the Grace brethren who reject the first four points but accept the fifth?



The better way to look at this is that all believers in heaven will be on the same page; they will all be biblically aligned and most definitely Presbyterian


----------



## Arch2k

"What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow."
*- C. H. Spurgeon*


----------



## ReformedWretch

Jeff_Bartel said:


> "What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow."
> *- C. H. Spurgeon*



AWESOME QUOTE!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Jeff_Bartel said:


> "What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow."
> *- C. H. Spurgeon*





My grandfather was a Wesleyan/Methodist preacher for 50 years. He would pray so fervently at night when I was a child you could hear him outside. My grandmother had standards of holiness that would put anyone here to shame. I remember going to camp meetings with them when I was a kid. They worshipped God hard. They were married for 70 years when grandad died. I really find it hard to believe theyre in hell because they had a faulty understanding of certain doctrines but yet loved Christ fervently.
BTW, Spurgeon was saved in a methodist church. Imagine that, God in his sovereign will saving a man while a hell bound lost heretic is preaching!
Forgive me brethren, but I'm as fervent a 5 pointer as anyone here but I'll stand with Spurgeon in his statement from "a defense of calvinism".


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> My grandfather was a Wesleyan/Methodist preacher for 50 years. He would pray so fervently at night when I was a child you could hear him outside. My grandmother had standards of holiness that would put anyone here to shame. I remember going to camp meetings with them when I was a kid. They worshipped God hard. They were married for 70 years when grandad died. I really find it hard to believe theyre in hell because they had a faulty understanding of certain doctrines but yet loved Christ fervently.
> BTW, Spurgeon was saved in a methodist church. Imagine that, God in his sovereign will saving a man while a hell bound lost heretic is preaching!
> Forgive me brethren, but I'm as fervent a 5 pointer as anyone here but I'll stand with Spurgeon in his statement from "a defense of calvinism".



Notice that God saved Spurgeon from the error.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

To avoid  

Define your terms. Most of these discussions go back and forth until the two sides actually see what the other side means when using the common terminology.

Many believe (falsely, but nonetheless) that if one is not a five point Calvinist, then he must be an Arminian. Keep this in mind when handing out anathemas. They think you are pronouncing anathema to "growing believers" when you really are not.


----------



## Arch2k

Blueridge reformer said:


> Forgive me brethren, but I'm as fervent a 5 pointer as anyone here but I'll stand with Spurgeon in his statement from "a defense of calvinism".


 
This one?



> The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. *I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism.* It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. *Such a gospel I abhor.*


 
I also abhor it. But if we believe that Arminians are Christians, should we abhor their gospel? At least they would be spreading truth? I hold that Spurgeon here is inconsistent. On one side, he says that the only gospel is Calvinism, one the other side he says that Arminians are saved. Contradiction at its best.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I like the term "gospelites" and growing believer, but I do not recall them being used much in previous discussions over this exact same issue (not praying per se, but the heresy issue).


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Scott Bushey said:


> The better way to look at this is that all believers in heaven will be on the same page; they will all be biblically aligned and most definitely Presbyterian



And I'll get to baptize everyone of you in the river of life!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeff_Bartel said:


> This one?
> 
> 
> 
> I also abhor it. But if we believe that Arminians are Christians, should we abhor their gospel? At least they would be spreading truth? I hold that Spurgeon here is inconsistent. On one side, he says that the only gospel is Calvinism, one the other side he says that Arminians are saved. Contradiction at its best.



And this same double-talk continues to this day. Shameful. Lets lull people right into hell.


----------



## Arch2k

ChristopherPaul said:


> To avoid
> 
> Define your terms. Most of these discussions go back and forth until the two sides actually see what the other side means when using the common terminology.
> 
> Many believe (falsely, but nonetheless) that if one is not a five point Calvinist, then he must be an Arminian. Keep this in mind when handing out anathemas. They think you are pronouncing anathema to "growing believers" when you really are not.


 
Chris,

I agree. We cannot label all non-Calvinists Arminians. This is important to keep in mind.

I see four basic groups of people (maybe you can add more).

Pagans - obviously don't know God

Calvinists - not only in profession, but in belief. Obviously saved because they believe the gospel.

Gospelites - people that are probably ignorant of Calvinism, yet believe that God has saved them by free, sovereign grace alone, by faith alone, because of Christ alone.

Pelagians/Arminians - people that add to the work of God by making salvation hinge not on Christ's work alone, but ultimately their works, merits, willing and running. This is the same gospel Paul anathemetized in Galations. These are the people in this discussion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

ChristopherPaul said:


> I like the term "gospelites" and growing believer, but I do not recall them being used much in previous discussions over this exact same issue (not praying per se, but the heresy issue).



Because, that was not the point I was trying to get across in that thread and that being that _practicing_ Arminians are heretics and perishing.


----------



## Arch2k

Scott Bushey said:


> And this same double-talk continues to this day. Shameful. Lets lull people right into hell.


 
Exactly. I don't think we're doing any favors to Arminians by calling them "brethren." We need to evangelise them! Speak of the horrid nature of a gospel that requires their own obedience! This is nothing less than to place man back in the garden of Eden, working to please God and earn his grace. What a condition!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Chris,
> 
> I agree. We cannot label all non-Calvinists Arminians. This is important to keep in mind.
> 
> I see four basic groups of people (maybe you can add more).
> 
> Pagans - obviously don't know God
> 
> Calvinists - not only in profession, but in belief. Obviously saved because they believe the gospel.
> 
> Gospelites - people that are probably ignorant of Calvinism, yet believe that God has saved them by free, sovereign grace alone, by faith alone, because of Christ alone.
> 
> Pelagians/Arminians - people that add to the work of God by making salvation hinge not on Christ's work alone, but ultimately their works, merits, willing and running. This is the same gospel Paul anathemetized in Galations. These are the people in this discussion.



I agree, and by these definitions I would think we should all agree. The confusion comes when people don't know what an Arminian really is.

So do we pray in one accord (isn't all prayer to be in one accord?) with Gnostics, Mormons, Judiazers, and Pelagians? No, nor do we with Arminians.

However, I for one have yet to meet a true Arminian in person.


----------



## Scott Bushey

ChristopherPaul said:


> I agree, and by these definitions I would think we should all agree. The confusion comes when people don't know what an Arminian really is.
> 
> So do we pray in one accord (isn't all prayer to be in one accord?) with Gnostics, Mormons, Judiazers, and Pelagians? No, nor do we with Arminians.
> 
> However, I for one have yet to meet a true Arminian in person.



Would you consider Norman Geisler an Arminian?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Scott Bushey said:


> Would you consider Norman Geisler an Arminian?



I have never met him, but does he actually believe that he helped merit his salvation, aka synergism?


----------



## Arch2k

Blueridge reformer said:


> My grandfather was a Wesleyan/Methodist preacher for 50 years. He would pray so fervently at night when I was a child you could hear him outside. My grandmother had standards of holiness that would put anyone here to shame. I remember going to camp meetings with them when I was a kid. They worshipped God hard. They were married for 70 years when grandad died. I really find it hard to believe theyre in hell because they had a faulty understanding of certain doctrines but yet loved Christ fervently.
> BTW, Spurgeon was saved in a methodist church. Imagine that, God in his sovereign will saving a man while a hell bound lost heretic is preaching!
> Forgive me brethren, but I'm as fervent a 5 pointer as anyone here but I'll stand with Spurgeon in his statement from "a defense of calvinism".


 
I will also say that I was formerly an Arminian, and most of my family (including my parents) are still so. I did not come to this belief lightly, but I truely believe that they are not saved, and the more I talk to them about the true gospel, it becomes more and more apparant.

I think all of us who have been saved by God's grace from our conditional gospel should be as Paul:



> Phi 3:8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
> Phi 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;


 
As Paul counted his works and even "salvation" as a Pharisee as rubbish, so I count my works and "salvation" as an Arminian as dung, that I may gain Christ.


----------



## Arch2k

ChristopherPaul said:


> I have never met him, but does he actually believe that he helped merit his salvation, aka synergism?


 
All arminians do! Free will necessitates synergism.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Jeff_Bartel said:


> All arminians do! Free will necessitates synergism.



Ok, but I have never spoken with Mr. Geisler nor read any of his books. Does he actually say that he merited a portion of his salvation?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Jeff_Bartel said:


> I will also say that I was formerly an Arminian



So were you a full five point Arminian or just a three pointer?

I am not sure if I could ever say I was an Arminian. I didn't even know what an Arminian was until I became a Calvinist. Did I ever really believe that i was saved by grace plus works? I don't think so - at least not while I was a professing Christian.


----------



## Arch2k

Arminians don't explicitly say that they merit salvation. In fact, they deny it! But, they equivicate on merit, for they do not define "free-will" as them meriting their salvation, but that is EXACTLY what free-will is!

We have to remember that Catholics, Jehovah's witnesses and all other sorts of heretical groups claim to be christians, but that does not make it so.

Tit 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him...


----------



## Arch2k

ChristopherPaul said:


> So were you a full five point Arminian or just a three pointer?
> 
> I am not sure if I could ever say I was an Arminian. I didn't even know what an Arminian was until I became a Calvinist. Did I ever really believe that i was saved by grace plus works? I don't think so - at least not while I was a professing Christian.


 
I wouldn't have said it that way, but looking back, my belief in free-will was just that. Me trying to save myself. Ultimately, who hands was my salvation in? My own. God couldn't do it, for he would not infringe on my free-will! I must do it. It was my own, my precious...

I was probably a four-pointer....belief in eternal security, but that's about it.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Didn't Jacob Arminius state that his salvation did depend partly on a small work in and of himself?


----------



## Arch2k

ChristopherPaul said:


> Didn't Jacob Arminius state that his salvation did depend on a small work in and of himself?


 
Not that I know of.

Here's another good quote from Spurgeon:



> "Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, `If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is `Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men."
> Free Will-A Slave ​


----------



## Herald

houseparent said:


> I think that is and has been Scott's point here at the PB for a long time.



Adam - I haven't read enough of Scott's posts on the subject to come to that conclusion, but I will accept it as fact unless Scott cares to respond that he believes otherwise. 

I do believe that historical Arminianism _is_ heresy. That being said, I could not join my prayers to enemies of Christ, although I could pray in their presence according to the will of God. For instance, our nation celebrates a National Day of Prayer. It is beyond argument that many who participate in this day of prayer do not know Christ. With that being the case, can I still pray? Yes. I pray for God's will to be done in our nation while not joining my prayers to enemies of the cross.


----------



## Pilgrim

ChristopherPaul said:


> I have never met him, but does he actually believe that he helped merit his salvation, aka synergism?



I don't know if he would word it that way, but Geisler has said that God is trying to save all that he can.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> but Geisler has said that *God is trying to save all that he can*



YIKES!!!!


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott Bushey said:


> Why do you say that? You imply that the believers of that day were all in error? As well, where do you draw the line then? You imply God grades upon some curve.
> 
> God has always had a remnant stump.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our church practices closed communion



Closed communion meaning what exactly? Only members of RPCGA churches can come to the table, or are other confessional Reformed believers welcome? If it's the latter I would term that close communion, where those from other churches of like faith and practice can come to the table. Again this is a question of defining terms. When some see "closed communion" they take it to mean that only members of that particular congregation may partake. 

Also, do you consider Baptists who hold to the doctrines of grace to be in the same category as Arminians? (i.e. heretics and not merely "in error"). 

Earlier you distinguished Arminianism from Dispensationalism, saying that the latter was merely error. While many who are basically Dispensational like MacArthur and many in the SBC teach that there has always been only one way of salvation, what about the more extreme forms of Dispensationalism that teach that there have been different gospels throughout history?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pilgrim said:


> Closed communion meaning what exactly? Only members of RPCGA churches can come to the table, or are other confessional Reformed believers welcome? If it's the latter I would term that close communion, where those from other churches of like faith and practice can come to the table. Again this is a question of defining terms. When some see "closed communion" they take it to mean that only members of that particular congregation may partake.



I believe the RPCGA practices 'close'; In our church we tighten up the reigns a bit. For instance, until it is clear from an interview prior to the table that all things are in order, it will be withheld. Just because someone says they are PCA does not qualify them for our table; for all we know, they are under discipline.



> Also, do you consider Baptists who hold to the doctrines of grace to be in the same category as Arminians? (i.e. heretics and not merely "in error").
> 
> Earlier you distinguished Arminianism from Dispensationalism, saying that the latter was merely error. While many who are basically Dispensational like MacArthur and many in the SBC teach that there has always been only one way of salvation, what about the more extreme forms of Dispensationalism that teach that there have been different gospels throughout history?



The extreme Dispensationalists, i.e. Lahaye etc. are heretical. The strand of dispensationalism I refered to was the Progresive dispensationalism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A few thoughts:

I just believe that, thanks to the mercy of God, many people's faith is better than the theology they've been fed (on paper).

And I believe that many (maybe most) people who are getting that bad theology are in fact lost, since they are getting the Galatian heresy, packaged as Christianity. These are difficult days to live in. But look at all the rotten fruit! That's telling us something, namely, there are a lot of lost people calling themselves Christians.

And, sadly, not saying anyone here or their relatives, but even very moral people may not be saved. You need both dogma and ethics in saving measure. But I, too, have non-Calvinist dear relatives--relatives who taught their children so well devotion to God and his Word, that those children are today Calvinist believers. So, is that later faithfulness connected to earlier faith? I would have to think so...

Which may be followed by the corrolary: _many people with Reformed dogmas_ will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven. Pity. But, since practice follows thinking in the ordinary Providence, I expect most folks who have correct doctrine will be saved in fact. Mostly, because full-orbed correct doctrine includes dying to self. But often, people think 5-points is the gospel, and that's it. And they are CARNAL to the core!

And none of us are 100% right anyway, so the best of us (whoever that is) needs grace upon grace. Its just that, in this conversation, we are cognizant that the GOSPEL is so central and important. We need to promote the truth, and starting with the 5-points is an excellent place. They need to be worked out, though, and extended into a life of covenant existence, governed in every place by Scripture.

Last thought: one theologian I heard quipped: "Sure, you can be saved outside a Reformed church, but why take that chance?"

That's enough from me.


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott Bushey said:


> I believe the RPCGA practices 'close'; In our church we tighten up the reigns a bit. For instance, until it is clear from an interview prior to the table that all things are in order, it will be withheld. Just because someone says they are PCA does not qualify them for our table; for all we know, they are under discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> The extreme Dispensationalists, i.e. Lahaye etc. are heretical. The strand of dispensationalism I refered to was the historic dispensationalism J. Boice held to.



Boice held to historic premillenialism as opposed to dispensational premillenialism. I've never seen historic premil described as dispensationalism, a term which is generally used to refer to what Darby taught and Scofield, DTS, etc. popularized.


----------



## toddpedlar

Scott Bushey said:


> Because, that was not the point I was trying to get across in that thread and that being that _practicing_ Arminians are heretics and perishing.



Can you define a _practicing_ Arminian? 

Can one who believes that Christ alone saved him, wholly graciously, without any merit on his part, but who has a misunderstanding about the extent of the atonement (i.e. an illogical view), saved? Are you not close to falling into Carpenter's error, Scott? (this being the error that defines one's state of being, saved or unsaved, based on what one believes about how OTHER people are saved)


----------



## toddpedlar

So, Scott, what is it about "praying with others" that makes you guilty of agreeing in toto with their theology? Do you have a questionnaire that you go through, point by point, to make sure they don't have any heterodox beliefs, before you allow yourself to bend the knee with them?

Are you guilty of sin when you lead a group in prayer that contains a believer who holds a heretical specific?


----------



## Blue Tick

Scott Bushey said:


> A growing believer. There is a big difference between someone who is growing in faith and one that holds to Arminianism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pilgrim said:


> Boice held to historic premillenialism as opposed to dispensational premillenialism. I've never seen historic premil described as dispensationalism, a term which is generally used to refer to what Darby taught and Scofield, DTS, etc. popularized.



Chris,
My mistake; I meant to say _progressive dispensationalism_. I see PD as error, but the Lehaye strain of dispensationalism as heresy.


----------



## Scott Bushey

toddpedlar said:


> So, Scott, what is it about "praying with others" that makes you guilty of agreeing in toto with their theology? Do you have a questionnaire that you go through, point by point, to make sure they don't have any heterodox beliefs, before you allow yourself to bend the knee with them?
> 
> Are you guilty of sin when you lead a group in prayer that contains a believer who holds a heretical specific?



We're not talking about 'agreeing in toto' with one's theology but praying with heretics. There's a difference between error and heresy. Arminianism is heresy (see definition embedded above). Why would anyone want to pray w/ a Jehovah's Witness?

I generally pray w/ my family and extended family on holidays; I make sure my prayer clearly defines the who and why. Since the majority of my family is unsaved and non covenantal, they do not hear the idiosyncrasies embedded in my prayer excluding them. it is my responsibility to handle the word of God rightfully. This is not to say that Tina and I do not pray regularly for their salvation; we do!


----------



## Scott Bushey

trevorjohnson said:


> A possible scenario if we agree with Scott:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE DYING MAN, THE ARMINIAN WIFE AND THE NARROW CALVINIST: A play in one act*
> 
> 
> SCENE ONE: A five-pointer (hypothetically his name is Bob) visits the family of a dying man in a hospital room
> 
> [various beeps..stage is white...].
> 
> Narrator: This dying man is a full-fledged card-carrying calvinist too...but his wife is not. She believes in free will but says that she has trusted in Christ to be her saviour and Lord and she loves a life of Bible study.
> 
> She attends the OPC with her husband but 'just doesn't know all that theological stuff...".
> 
> She says that she knows that we are saved through grace alone through the work of Christ and all we have to do is to believe this to be saved. When she prayed for salvation she prayed, "Oh Lord, save me from my sins..."
> 
> Then, the Arminian wife of the dying man asks Bob..let's pick it up there...
> 
> 
> Arminian wife: "Oh, my husband is dying [beep...bepp...beep..beep... of the respirator in the background]..won't you pray with me for him..."
> 
> Bob:  "Sorry...no can do....I want to glorify God by not associating with your type..."
> 
> Arminian wife: I know I do not know as much as you - oh great Puritan Imitator - but I desire for you to pray with me here for the health of my husband.."
> 
> Bob: "I take my theology very seriously and I cannot lower myself to pray for one who believes in works righteousness..."
> 
> Arminian wife: "But I trusted in Christ and I am praying for him to save me and take me to heaven... I do not believe in works righteousness.."
> 
> Bob: Oh, but your sytem leads to it...[with drama] Madame, you are a Pelagian!"
> 
> Arminian Wife: A pelajjiooo..what? What is that? I trust in Christ alone for my salvation even if I accepted him during an altar call and you didn't... and I trust him now.
> 
> ..Please, please Oh Great Calvinist Doctrine Expert, pray with me for my poor husband..."
> 
> Bob: Sorry, I can have no fellowship with the works of darkness..."
> 
> 
> 
> [beep....beep......BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...as the man dies..."
> 
> 
> CURTAINS CLOSE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Praying WITH someone is not agreeing with them nor endorsing their beliefs. I fear many hear would sacrifices exhibitions of Christian love over some silly misconception of doctrinal purity.



The above scenario is ridiculous based upon the definition provided in this thread between error and heresy. Obviously this dear woman is not a heretic. Trevor, please read the thread in it's entirety before posting such stuff. The post previous to yours states that I pray for those who need prayer, so I have no idea where you got that from. Have you read the thread?

I will again clarify for everyone. I have said this many times in many threads:



> Arminianism is heresy. Arminians are heretics! Heresy damns! I have never met an Arminian



Lets go another route: Who should we not pray with and why?


----------



## Scott Bushey

trevorjohnson said:


> Okay.....
> 
> 
> Change the name "Arminian Wife" to *Tim Lehaye* and of course change the character of the dying man to a dying woman).
> 
> Now, how do you respond to my scenario since you have seemed to already have called him a heretic....



I would pray for their salvation, that if it pleased God that he would give them light. That if it pleased the Lord, if He chose, to let them see His truth, truth that sets one free from heresy............

There is a great difference between _with_ and _for_.


----------



## Scott Bushey

There are people God does not want us to even pray for:



> Jeremiah 7:9-16 9 "Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal, and walk after other gods that you have not known, 10 then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, 'We are delivered!'-- that you may do all these abominations? 11 "Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it," declares the LORD. 12 "But go now to My place which was in Shiloh, where I made My name dwell at the first, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. 13 "And now, because you have done all these things," declares the LORD, "and I spoke to you, rising up early and speaking, but you did not hear, and I called you but you did not answer, 14 therefore, I will do to the house which is called by My name, in which you trust, and to the place which I gave you and your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. 15 "And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brothers, all the offspring of Ephraim. 16 *"As for you, do not pray for this people, and do not lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with Me; for I do not hear you. *





> Matthew 5:44 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you



Reconcile the above


----------



## beej6

My former pastor once went to an interfaith pastors' conference, one local to his church. Mostly professing Christians, some non-Christians too. After hearing some of the heretical prayers of the so-called Christian clergy there, it was his turn to pray and he basically prayed that God would have mercy on the group for praying heresies. They still invite him, but I don't think he goes back to that conference


----------



## MrMerlin777

I've got a question. Does belief in free will necessitate Arminianism?

And please answer my question with a plain self thought out answer. No quotes from the WCF or the Cannons of Dordt please. (Great as those two documents are)


Even George Whitfield great evangelist and Calvinist that he was, believed John Westley, a free willer, was his brother in Christ.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Belief in "free will" is dangerous but I *personally* (meaning based on no other document or direct teaching from another man) that those who believe in free will ignorantly are simply in error. However, once presented with the truth of the scripture in regard to that nonsense, if still you stubbornly insist that man has "free will" you are lost in your sin. Not that you then may never learn the truth, but at that moment you are lost, rejecting plain biblical truth for the teaching of men.

I was once there. I believe the Lord was working on me, taking me where He willed, but I now believe that while I was a stubborn believer in mans free will (over God's!!!!) I was not "saved" because I believed I was saved because of what I did. I believe I wasn't saved because I believed in a god who was limitted by his creation.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

trevorjohnson said:


> A possible scenario if we agree with Scott:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE DYING MAN, THE ARMINIAN WIFE AND THE NARROW CALVINIST: A play in one act*
> 
> 
> SCENE ONE: A five-pointer (hypothetically his name is Bob) visits the family of a dying man in a hospital room
> 
> [various beeps..stage is white...].
> 
> Narrator: This dying man is a full-fledged card-carrying calvinist too...but his wife is not. She believes in free will but says that she has trusted in Christ to be her saviour and Lord and she loves a life of Bible study.
> 
> She attends the OPC with her husband but 'just doesn't know all that theological stuff...".
> 
> She says that she knows that we are saved through grace alone through the work of Christ and all we have to do is to believe this to be saved. When she prayed for salvation she prayed, "Oh Lord, save me from my sins..."
> 
> Then, the Arminian wife of the dying man asks Bob..let's pick it up there...
> 
> 
> Arminian wife: "Oh, my husband is dying [beep...bepp...beep..beep... of the respirator in the background]..won't you pray with me for him..."
> 
> Bob:  "Sorry...no can do....I want to glorify God by not associating with your type..."
> 
> Arminian wife: I know I do not know as much as you - oh great Puritan Imitator - but I desire for you to pray with me here for the health of my husband.."
> 
> Bob: "I take my theology very seriously and I cannot lower myself to pray for one who believes in works righteousness..."
> 
> Arminian wife: "But I trusted in Christ and I am praying for him to save me and take me to heaven... I do not believe in works righteousness.."
> 
> Bob: Oh, but your sytem leads to it...[with drama] Madame, you are a Pelagian!"
> 
> Arminian Wife: A pelajjiooo..what? What is that? I trust in Christ alone for my salvation even if I accepted him during an altar call and you didn't... and I trust him now.
> 
> ..Please, please Oh Great Calvinist Doctrine Expert, pray with me for my poor husband..."
> 
> Bob: Sorry, I can have no fellowship with the works of darkness..."
> 
> 
> 
> [beep....beep......BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...as the man dies..."
> 
> 
> CURTAINS CLOSE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Praying WITH someone is not agreeing with them nor endorsing their beliefs. I fear many hear would sacrifices exhibitions of Christian love over some silly misconception of doctrinal purity.




 That was good brother! That was good!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> That was good brother! That was good!



You may think it's 'good' but it was irrelevant to the discussion based upon the previous posts. People need to either read the thread or hold their tongue.


----------



## Arch2k

Blueridge reformer said:


> That was good brother! That was good!


 


Scott Bushey said:


> You may think it's 'good' but it was irrelevant to the discussion based upon the previous posts. People need to either read the thread or hold their tongue.


 
Not only that, it is an appeal to pity. The same situation can be turned on its head to show its absurdity. What if the wife is a wiccian? Would you pray with her Treveor? Would you pray with a Jehovah's witness? Maybe one of the Waco Texas cult leaders? A Roman Catholic Priest? Most of these claim to be saved by Christ too!


----------



## Arch2k

Scott Bushey said:


> I have never met an Arminian


 
Two questions brother Scott:

1) How would YOU define Arminianism in context of this discussion (all 5 pts.?)?

2) What is it about Arminianism that makes it a damning heresy over and against just "error"?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Scott Bushey said:


> You may think it's 'good' but it was irrelevant to the discussion based upon the previous posts. People need to either read the thread or hold their tongue.



I beg to differ with you brother. It had everything to do with the discussion. Your position (if I've understood it) is that anyone who does not embrace the 5 points is not saved, and is therefore a heretic to be shunned. Therefore, anyone who names the name of Christ must jump up and down in our "bucket" before we can have fellowship with them. I read the thread and I have participated in the thread. I will not hold my tongue.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Two questions brother Scott:
> 
> 1) How would YOU define Arminianism in context of this discussion (all 5 pts.?)?



As defined by Dordt.



> 2) What is it about Arminianism that makes it a damning heresy over and against just "error"?



As a system it denies Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of Christs elect. 

~I know that the above is the default answer to your question, but it is easily understood in that light.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> I beg to differ with you brother. It had everything to do with the discussion. Your position (if I've understood it) is that anyone who does not embrace the 5 points is not saved, and is therefore a heretic to be shunned. Therefore, anyone who names the name of Christ must jump up and down in our "bucket" before we can have fellowship with them. I read the thread and I have participated in the thread. I will not hold my tongue.



OK Jim,
You've read the thread, right? Please show me where I said that? It would be much easier holding your tongue, but since you have accused me of saying something that I have not, I will indulge you once again to show you that it is better at times to hold the tongue.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Scott Bushey said:


> OK Jim,
> You've read the thread, right? Please show me where I said that? It would be much easier holding your tongue, but since you have accused me of saying something that I have not, I will indulge you once again to show you that it is better at times to hold the tongue.




Please for give me brother, for I have surely misunderstood you when you said this:


I'll be the first to say it: If Wesley died holding to Arminian theology, the one that the remonstrants held to, the one that Dordt condemned, he perished without Christ. As well, I will add Mother Theresa and all her good works to the bunch.
__________________

Scott Bushey 
Husband to Tina, Father to Nicole, Danielle & Zoe
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, 
Margate, Florida
RPCGA


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> Please for give me brother, for I have surely misunderstood you when you said this:
> 
> 
> I'll be the first to say it: If Wesley died holding to Arminian theology, the one that the remonstrants held to, the one that Dordt condemned, he perished without Christ. As well, I will add Mother Theresa and all her good works to the bunch.



I still hold to this statement; However, it is much different than what you previously accused me of. Let me clarify; If anyone dies holding to Arminian theology, the one that the remonstrants held to, the one that Dordt condemned, he perishes without Christ.

~I have never met anyone who held to all 5 points of the remonstrants.


----------



## Arch2k

Scott Bushey said:


> ~I have never met anyone who held to all 5 points of the remonstrants.


 
Just for clarification, the remonstrants left the "5th" point open. They were undecided on the "perserverance of the saints."



> That those who are in&shy;corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well un&shy;derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was deliv&shy;ered them, of losing a good conscience, of be&shy;coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, be&shy;fore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.


 
from The Remonstrant Articles.


----------



## Scott Bushey

trevorjohnson said:


> Scott;
> 
> My post has everything to do with your thread. Take your own advice sometimes and hold your own tongue. I read your thread..I just didn't agree. You are quick to rebuke but slow to listen.



Slow to listen? Your post had nothing to do with the thread for if you had read it and understood it you would have seen that I never said anything about Geneva nor about anathematizing anyone who was in error; only those whom are heretics. That was the distinction I made. It was perfectly clear. How could you miss that? All your posts here and in other threads border upon pity (as Jeff cited) and the modern evangelical tolerance. I'll stick with the bible.



> Anyone who has Christ, despite errors, has salvation.



What Christ Trevor? The Mormons claim a Christ. The JW's claim a Christ. The Roman Catholics claim a Christ. The Boston Church of Christ claims Christ; Are these errors or heresy? The Arminians that I have described here claim a Christ and are none the less perishing-admit it. They claim a Christ that is not able to keep them; he is a weak God whom is equal to satan. This is nonsense and is nothing more than an assault on the Gospel. 




> One must not need pass by Geneva to get to Him.



only the truth can set you free....not part of it.







> Jeff-Bartel:
> 
> As far as my "argument from pity" goes... who cares. People do this all the time, even past theologians and Reformers. There should always be an passion for what we believe.



Thats exactly what were railing at; a passion for the true Gospel.





> Also Jeff,
> 
> Do you ever pray with the unsaved? How about those seeking salvation? How about those who refuse Christ but will pray with you for more light, how about those in error but are meeting with you to learn - even though they haven't yet left their old errors....?



I believe everyone made this perfectly clear earlier in this thread.




> Some examples (from reality):
> 
> *The unsaved: *"Lord, I am in trouble now and I do not know who you are. Help me figure this out" followed by *mine*, "Lord, show this person your nature and the beauty of Christ. Help her to meet you..etc..in the name of Jesus, the only true path to heaven "



I have no problem with this; I have done it on many occasions.



> Another example (from recent reality):
> *The Muslim: *" Allah, help this person who is sick and make him well again."
> *Myself,* invited to take part: "Father in Heaven, I know that you care for your creation. Help this sick one and restore him to health...In the name of your son Jesus Christ."



I would not pray alongside a Muslim. He is a hater of the cross of Christ and the Gospel.



> I have prayed with sinners and I have (gasp) even prayed with a Wiccan and a Muslim this way. If a person is sick and Muslims are going to be praying for them anyway and they invite you also to pray, you can either (a) refuse and not pray for the sick - and deprive that person of your prayers and also deprive those hearers of precious words concerning Christ, or (b) Pray for the sick on your own terms even though they will also be doing the same.



I will either wait for another opportunity or pray in private at home for the person. I will not rub elbows with heretics.



> Can you see anything wrong with this?



You're kidding me, right?




> It is part and parcel of evangelism.



Not biblical evangelism.





> If we are caring for our neighbors than we are always praying for them and sometimes praying WITH them too- though never compromising one's faith or bending your beliefs one iota, even though you extend all the compassion you can. Muslims have asked to pray for me and I always tell them "please do..and let me do the same for you..."



I pray for their salvation solely. They are otherwise at enmity w/ God and God does not acknowledge them. Their sin has separated them.




> My hypothetical argument from pity is not so hypothetical at all.
> 
> People get sick all the time and ask for the prayers of friends.



I pray for their eternal condition.





> In the presence of many in a sick room do you ask, "_*Will you pray for her...oh, but not you Bob - your theology is a little off.." *_
> 
> Do you hold a prayer over a sick loved one but announce that _*all Arminians must first leave the room*_?



I am selectively concerned how and why I pray. 




> What do people do when they are near death - they pray. A theology lesson cannot be taught at the time but Christian compassion can be demonstrated.



I hear you; do you hear me?

Care to interact with this passage?



> Jeremiah 7:9-16 9 "Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal, and walk after other gods that you have not known, 10 then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, 'We are delivered!'-- that you may do all these abominations? 11 "Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it," declares the LORD. 12 "But go now to My place which was in Shiloh, where I made My name dwell at the first, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. 13 "And now, because you have done all these things," declares the LORD, "and I spoke to you, rising up early and speaking, but you did not hear, and I called you but you did not answer, 14 therefore, I will do to the house which is called by My name, in which you trust, and to the place which I gave you and your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. 15 "And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brothers, all the offspring of Ephraim. 16 *"As for you, do not pray for this people, and do not lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with Me; for I do not hear you.*


----------



## Arch2k

Trevor,

An "appeal to pity" is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter who utilizes it. Pity in itself is fine, but when used to try to persude someone of the truth of something, it is fallacious. It is nothing more than emotionalism in place of logic.

Here's an example:

"Puppies and kitties are SO cute. Just look at how helpless they are! I rescued a puppy with a broken leg the other day and it occured to me that animals like this need God's grace too. So I brought it to church and gave it communion. God loves the little puppies just like he loves you and he loves me!"

There are actually people who do this by the way.


----------



## non dignus

I won't pray at any American Evangelical meeting. 

I will NOT pray with an experienced Arminian teacher because it is reasonable to assume he has been shown, and has rejected, the doctrines of grace. 

I would pray with any Arminian/Trinitarian novice.


----------



## Scott Bushey

toddpedlar said:


> Do you invite unbelievers to pray with you before meals?
> 
> Todd



Todd,
Sorry, I missed this one: No! If I am in this type of situation, I focus my prayers on me and my family- I generalize.


----------



## satz

Scott and Jeff,

Could you say which verses make you believe that elect, regenerate men are incapable of falling into arminian heresy or that the Holy Spirit will not allow them to?


----------



## Scott Bushey

satz said:


> Scott and Jeff,
> 
> Could you say which verses make you believe that elect, regenerate men are incapable of falling into arminian heresy or that the Holy Spirit will not allow them to?



John 16:12-15 12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 "He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. 15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you. 

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Thessalonians 3:3 3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

Jude 1:24-25 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

John 6:37-39 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Philippians 1:6 6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I think that one thing should be made as a distinction - praying with someone (as in a prayer meeting) and praying with/for someone on the spot.

These are quite different.

For example, Abraham prayed FOR Abimelech, not with him.

Paul prayed WITH the elders at Jerusalem.

Why not pray with an Arminian FOR him at the time of praying that he would see the Gospel clearly?  

I would have not problem pulling soemone unsaved aside and praying for them, that God would demonstrate His soverign power over them and show them the truth. That sparks conversations. But I would never let them take the reigns.


----------



## Scott Bushey

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I think that one thing should be made as a distinction - praying with someone (as in a prayer meeting) and praying with/for someone on the spot.
> 
> These are quite different.
> 
> For example, Abraham prayed FOR Abimelech, not with him.
> 
> Paul prayed WITH the elders at Jerusalem.
> 
> Why not pray with an Arminian FOR him at the time of praying that he would see the Gospel clearly?
> 
> I would have not problem pulling soemone unsaved aside and praying for them, that God would demonstrate His soverign power over them and show them the truth. That sparks conversations. But I would never let them take the reigns.



Matt,
That distinction has been made earlier in the thread; the difference between praying with/for those w/ heretical views. _With_, no! _For_, yes!


----------



## Arch2k

satz said:


> Scott and Jeff,
> 
> Could you say which verses make you believe that elect, regenerate men are incapable of falling into arminian heresy or that the Holy Spirit will not allow them to?


 
Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
Gal 1:7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

satz said:


> Scott and Jeff,
> 
> Could you say which verses make you believe that elect, regenerate men are incapable of falling into arminian heresy or that the Holy Spirit will not allow them to?



Here's another:

Mark 13:22 22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Key words: "If it were possible........."


----------



## Blue Tick

Three people that assault the doctrines of Grace.

Norman Geisler- Chosen but Free

Dave Hunt- What Love is This

George Bryson- The Darkside of Calvinism

Now, all three of these men claim to be Christians, and all three clearly attack the DoG. However, they would vehemently argue that they are not Arminian.
Therefore, just because the above authors don't call themselves Arminian doesn't mean that their theology isn't Arminian. In essence they're Arminians in theology and doctrine even though they don't call themselves Arminian. The point is, just like with Mormons, we have the same WORDS, but wrong and different definitions.

Mormons- We believe in Jesus

Arminians/Evangelicals- We believe in Jesus

Reformed- We believe in Jesus

Question: Which Jesus?

I can call some Mormon missionaries over and they would be happy to pray in Jesus' name. The same with Christians who wounldn't call themselves Arminians but are Arminian in theology. We could get together and pray in Jesus' name.

Mormon Jesus- Satan's brother, created being, had a wife, etc.
Conclusion: Heresy

Arminian/Evangelical Jesus- Our Jesus want's to save everyone, our Jesus wouldn't send people to hell, our Jesus won't violate your freewill because he gave you the precious gift of freewill so you could truly chose him. You need to invite him into your heart. 
Conclusion: Story book Jesus

Reformed/Biblical Jesus- Judge and Justifier. Chose some for salvation based upon his will and good pleasure. Nothing in him is contingent upon the will of man, etc.
Conclusion: Biblical Jesus, even if it is uncomfortable.

The problem is which Jesus are we praying to? The Arminian Jesus who want's to save everyone but can't or the sovereign Jesus who is the judge and justifier of men. Therefore, should (I,we) pray *with* evangelicals/Arminians who hold to to the gospel that is propagted by men like, Geisler, Hunt, and Bryson. What these guys expound in their books is what most non-reformed Christians believe. If you don't think this is the gospel that a majority of evangelicals hold then you are sadly naive. 

Why is this an issue? Because if we are praying to a Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible then we are praying to a false Jesus. It seems that the majority of Evangelicals have a Jesus they want but not the Jesus of scripture.


----------



## Blue Tick

trevorjohnson said:


> A possible scenario if we agree with Scott:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE DYING MAN, THE ARMINIAN WIFE AND THE NARROW CALVINIST: A play in one act*
> 
> 
> SCENE ONE: A five-pointer (hypothetically his name is Bob) visits the family of a dying man in a hospital room
> 
> [various beeps..stage is white...].
> 
> Narrator: This dying man is a full-fledged card-carrying calvinist too...but his wife is not. She believes in free will but says that she has trusted in Christ to be her saviour and Lord and she loves a life of Bible study.
> 
> She attends the OPC with her husband but 'just doesn't know all that theological stuff...".
> 
> She says that she knows that we are saved through grace alone through the work of Christ and all we have to do is to believe this to be saved. When she prayed for salvation she prayed, "Oh Lord, save me from my sins..."
> 
> Then, the Arminian wife of the dying man asks Bob..let's pick it up there...
> 
> 
> Arminian wife: "Oh, my husband is dying [beep...bepp...beep..beep... of the respirator in the background]..won't you pray with me for him..."
> 
> Bob:  "Sorry...no can do....I want to glorify God by not associating with your type..."
> 
> Arminian wife: I know I do not know as much as you - oh great Puritan Imitator - but I desire for you to pray with me here for the health of my husband.."
> 
> Bob: "I take my theology very seriously and I cannot lower myself to pray for one who believes in works righteousness..."
> 
> Arminian wife: "But I trusted in Christ and I am praying for him to save me and take me to heaven... I do not believe in works righteousness.."
> 
> Bob: Oh, but your sytem leads to it...[with drama] Madame, you are a Pelagian!"
> 
> Arminian Wife: A pelajjiooo..what? What is that? I trust in Christ alone for my salvation even if I accepted him during an altar call and you didn't... and I trust him now.
> 
> ..Please, please Oh Great Calvinist Doctrine Expert, pray with me for my poor husband..."
> 
> Bob: Sorry, I can have no fellowship with the works of darkness..."
> 
> 
> 
> [beep....beep......BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...as the man dies..."
> 
> 
> CURTAINS CLOSE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Praying WITH someone is not agreeing with them nor endorsing their beliefs. I fear many hear would sacrifices exhibitions of Christian love over some silly misconception of doctrinal purity.





Trevor you should have been a screenplay writer!

Obviously your point is made. But if the (character woman) believes in free will then her idea of how she was saved is works righteousness. Anyone that believes it is their own free will that gives them the power to believe the gospel is relying on a works based gospel.

Mormons believe and trust in Christ,love bible studies and believe in free will. 

So the question is which Jesus are you trusting in?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

A mistaken Christian who believes in free will does not make them an Arminian. Just as a Christian who believes in divine election does not make them a Calvinist. One who actively rejects the doctrines of grace, after being taught them faithfully, I believe is _not _being led by the spirit into truth. The only time I would refuse to pray with a non-Calvinist, non-reformed Christian is after I have explained the DoG to the best of my God given ability, and they refuse. That is where I know that they are following a different Jesus. 

Or, if they come out and say "I'm an Arminian. I hate your Calvinist theology". 

A Christian woman whose husband is dying, who "doesn't understand" all that reformed theology stuff, I would pray with. Then lay out the DoG as easily and clearly as I could.


----------



## Blue Tick

Exagorazo said:


> A mistaken Christian who believes in free will does not make them an Arminian. Just as a Christian who believes in divine election does not make them a Calvinist. One who actively rejects the doctrines of grace, after being taught them faithfully, I believe is _not _being led by the spirit into truth. The only time I would refuse to pray with a non-Calvinist, non-reformed Christian is after I have explained the DoG to the best of my God given ability, and they refuse. That is where I know that they are following a different Jesus.
> Or, if they come out and say "I'm an Arminian. I hate your Calvinist theology".
> 
> A Christian woman whose husband is dying, who "doesn't understand" all that reformed theology stuff, I would pray with. Then lay out the DoG as easily and clearly as I could.



True, someone can be mistaken or misled in their theology. But if one rejects the DoG and believes in their free will, then they are relying on their power to choose God.

I think this example is a bit dramatic. (Trevor's Screenplay) Calvinistic theology is not hard to understand. It's not complicated, it only becomes complicated when we have been indoctrinated with BAD THEOLOGY and our minds need to be renewed.

Now if we were talking about Infra and Supra, these subjects are complicated. But ones salvation does not depend on ones view of Infra or Supra.


----------



## Arch2k

Blue Tick said:


> Trevor you should have been a screenplay writer!
> 
> Obviously your point is made. But if the (character woman) believes in free will then her idea of how she was saved is works righteousness. Anyone that believes it is their own free will that gives them the power to believe the gospel is relying on a works based gospel.
> 
> Mormons believe and trust in Christ,love bible studies and believe in free will.
> 
> So the question is which Jesus are you trusting in?


 
 and


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Blue Tick said:


> True, someone can be mistaken or misled in their theology. But if one rejects the DoG and believes in their free will, then they are relying on their power to choose God.


Exactly. 



Blue Tick said:


> I think this example is a bit dramatic.


Similar extreme examples are used as arguments against Reformed Christianity all the time. I was surprised to see one here, actually.



Blue Tick said:


> Calvinistic theology is not hard to understand. It's not complicated, it only becomes complicated when we have been indoctrinated with BAD THEOLOGY and our minds need to be renewed.


I think Mark Driscoll summed up reformed theology in layman's terms very well:

"We all suck, God saves us from ourselves."

It's not great or all encompassing, but lays down some basics.



Blue Tick said:


> Now if we were talking about Infra and Supra, these subjects are complicated. But ones salvation does not depend on ones view of Infra or Supra.


Indeed.


----------



## turmeric

I think most Arminians and classic evangelicals would agree that "we all suck. God saves us from ourselves." I don't think they understand it logically as we do. Some of them, and some Calvinists I might add, believe in works-righteousness, although they claim that they don't. Sometimes _I_ believe in works-righteousness! Getting a grip on the true Gospel is more of a process than a crisis for some reason. Decades of bad "evangelical" theology, taught consistently as the truth, has made that process unbelievably complicated for some. Of course, if we were not depraved and constantly seeking to be our own gods, it wouldn't be so complicated. I find it hard to assume that all convinced Arminians are unsaved if they won't accept _my_ explanation of Calvinism as truth. After all, it has only been tha past 4 years that I've come close to truly understanding this, and some of you no doubt think I don't, as I'm PCA, not OPC.

I think there's a logical fallacy called the "slippery slope" that is being committed here. It's like, if you have always been taught that one gets saved during an altar-call, you therefore *completely* trust yourself, not Christ, for salvation, therefore if you believe in altar-calls and can't be convinced otherwise, you're not saved. This seems to be going too far. 

PS. I'm listening to an evanjellyfish trying to sell "Christian mezzuzahs" to people. Now _that_ sounds WAAYY too close to the Galatian heresy to me!


----------



## Blue Tick

What Jesus are we supposed to trust in?



From the Book of Mormon 2:25:23

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; *for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
*


This was taken from Calvary Chapel Distinctives written by Chuck Smith. This is Calvary's basic confession of faith.


Another example of maintaining a balance on debatable issues is our approach to Calvinism. This is an area that people get very emotional about. We're neither 'Five Point Calvinists', nor are we Arminian. *We do believe in the security of the believer. We don't believe that you can lose your salvation because you lost your temper or told a lie and, as a result, need to go forward next Sunday night to repent and get resaved.*

*We believe in the security of the believer but we also believe in the 'perseverance of the saints.' We don't believe that because you are a saint you will necessarily persevere, but that you need to persevere because you're a saint*. Jesus said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" (John 8:31), and "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." (John 15:6-7). *Jesus Himself is the One that brought up the possibility of a person not abiding in Him. *So we seek to take a balanced position rather than getting on one side and pressing the 'Five Points of Calvinism.' *When you take hard stands on these non-foundational issues, you'll just empty your church of all of those who have Methodist, Nazarene, and other Arminian-infiuenced backgrounds. Why would you want to do that?*

The eternal security of the believer is a debatable issue at best. There are Scriptures on both sides. You have John 3:16. What does "Whosoever believeth in Him" mean? Does that mean that anybody can be saved? It appears to me to mean that, and so we don't take the hard-line Calvinistic position of limited atonement that says Jesus didn't die for everybody, only those who would believe in Him. We do not accept that believing in Him has nothing to do with human responsibility, but is totally the sovereign choice of God. This position states that God has ordained some to be saved and some to be lost. If God has ordained you to be lost, tough luck, buddy. There's nothing we can do. *This is a denial of the free moral agency. **Instead, we believe that God has given us the capacity of choice. The reason He gave us a capacity of choice is so that the love we express toward Him might be meaningful and real. That's the balanced position that we take.*

There are people who are always trying to pigeon-hole Calvary Chapel. *Do you believe in eternal security? I say, "Yes, of course I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, I'm eternally secure." Now, dispute that. If you don't abide in Christ, are you secure? Can you have security outside of Jesus Christ? I don't know of any security outside of Jesus Christ. But I believe as long as I abide in Him, He's going to keep me from falling,* He's going to present me faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy. And no man can pluck me out of His hand. I believe that, and I experience God's security.



Now the Mormons believe in Christ and believe we are saved by grace after all we can do.

Pastor Chuck Smith believes we are eternally secure as long as we are abiding."Yes, of course I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, I'm eternally secure."

The problem with Chuck's statement is what does he mean by abide? He's basically teaching that in order to be saved you need to continue to abide in Christ apart from the grace of God. He does not mention we can abide in Christ by God's grace. He clearly thinks that in order for him to feel eternally secure his continous efforts to abide will please God and he will experience God's security. But at any moment when he is not abiding he will incur God's displeasure because he didn't abide today.

Therefore, "we are saved by grace after all that we can do." Mormon

"As long as I am abiding in Christ I am eternally secure." Chuck Smith

*Conclusion= Both teach a works based gospel. Mormons teach we are saved by all that we can do. Chuck teaches as long as I am abiding I am ok. (aka after all that (I,we) can do)
*

*This is the fundamental problem: Same words different definitions.
*

Therefore, Chuck's Jesus can only save if he (Chuck) continues to abide. The Mormon Jesus will save as long as good Mormons offer additional work.

So what Jesus are we praying to when we get together with non-confessional Christians?


----------



## Blue Tick

Also, please don't be discouraged if you respond to my previous post and I don't respond right away. I need to fly to Memphis in the morning and will be busy all the way till Tuesday night.

Blessings


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> Boice held to historic premillenialism as opposed to dispensational premillenialism. I've never seen historic premil described as dispensationalism, a term which is generally used to refer to what Darby taught and Scofield, DTS, etc. popularized.



Have you read Boice's _Last and Future World_? In terms of eschatology, his premillennialism was very clearly dispensational (though he was not a dispensationalist), and not historic premillennialism.

See also this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16779


----------



## non dignus

Blueridge reformer said:


> I want to understand you correctly brother. Are you saying that one must have a complete understanding of the five points to be saved? This question is for Scott.



James,

To whom much is given, much is required. 
If one is shown from the scriptures the five points, 
and those five points are repeatedly rejected, 
how can we say that he has the Holy Spirit guiding him unto all truth? The rotten fruit is more obvious of seasoned, knowledgeable Christian teachers, and it is less obvious of novices and 'babes in Christ'.

I hope your grandparents' righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. I hope their's was an ALIEN righteousness. 

That your grandfather was a Wesleyan preacher gives me grave doubts.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> Have you read Boice's _Last and Future World_? In terms of eschatology, his premillennialism was very clearly dispensational (though he was not a dispensationalist), and not historic premillennialism.
> 
> See also this thread:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16779



See this thread for clarification. I have pasted the relevant post below. 

Boice started out Dispensational but that work to which you refer does not represent his later view, which was historic (covenantal) premil. See the following comments by Pastor Rick Phillips, who was mentored by Boice at Tenth:



> From Pastor Rick Phillips:
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Boice was historic premil. He had earlier been dispensational but had long since been cured of that before I got involved with him. *Unfortunately, his Hal-Lindsey type book, "The Once and Future World" is still in print. It dates from very early in his ministry and his reputation would be well served by its disappearance. * I hold the amillennial view, and he and I often talked about it. He was preaching Revelation when he died, and I suspected that he might change his view before he got to chapter 20, but it never happened.
> 
> Rick



(emphasis mine)

So the situation with Boice is similar to that with A.W. Pink when it comes to eschatology. Pink's _The Redeemer's Return_ and some other early dispensational works of his are still in print and apparently highly regarded by some dispensationalists, but by the early 30's (if not before) Pink was strongly denouncing dispensationalism. I think I also may have seen something from Philip G. Ryken (Boice's successor at Tenth) on Boice and his early dispensationalism.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

non dignus said:


> James,
> 
> To whom much is given, much is required.
> If one is shown from the scriptures the five points,
> and those five points are repeatedly rejected,
> how can we say they have the Holy Spirit guiding them unto all truth? The rotten fruit is more obvious of seasoned, knowledgeable Christian teachers, and it is less obvious of novices and 'babes in Christ'.
> 
> I hope your grandparents' righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees. I hope it was an ALIEN righteousness. That he was a Wesleyan preacher gives me grave doubts.




I have full confidence that I will meet them both Heaven based upon thier testimony as well as thier walk.


----------



## BobVigneault

Rom 15:1 We who are *strong* have an *obligation* to bear with the failings of the *weak*, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his *neighbor* for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.” 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.


Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your *neighbor* as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my *neighbor*?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”


----------



## MrMerlin777

Blueridge reformer said:


> I have full confidence that I will meet them both Heaven based upon thier testimony as well as thier walk.




Just so I have full confidence that I will see my (horror of horrors) Anabaptist Grandmother in Heaven as well brother. She relied on Christ for her salvation. And she was raised (GASP!!!!) Old German Baptist Brethren.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?

What about the Jews that were being enjoined in Hebrews?

I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians. The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.

Would I pray with Arminians? Maybe the better question is: Would I pray with a Christian?

These threads always go in the circle of treating living, breathing, complex Christians as if we can just segregate them cleanly according to theological points and, by our own authority, declare the faceless "Arminian" to be out of fellowship with us. I personally consider the question to be impious.

I'm not arguing for allowing a man into the pulpit to preach or distributing the Lord's Supper with eyes closed but we're talking about men who claim to trust in Christ for their salvation and the man asks to pray with us and we're going to stand back and say: "I don't pray with Arminians."

It strikes me as the Pharisee praying: "I thank God that I am not an Arminian...."

I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.

Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.


----------



## MrMerlin777

SemperFideles said:


> What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?
> 
> What about the Jews that were being enjoined in Hebrews?
> 
> I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians. The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.
> 
> Would I pray with Arminians? Maybe the better question is: Would I pray with a Christian?
> 
> These threads always go in the circle of treating living, breathing, complex Christians as if we can just segregate them cleanly according to theological points and, by our own authority, declare the faceless "Arminian" to be out of fellowship with us. I personally consider the question to be impious.
> 
> I'm not arguing for allowing a man into the pulpit to preach or distributing the Lord's Supper with eyes closed but we're talking about men who claim to trust in Christ for their salvation and the man asks to pray with us and we're going to stand back and say: "I don't pray with Arminians."
> 
> It strikes me as the Pharisee praying: "I thank God that I am not an Arminian...."
> 
> I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.
> 
> Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.



 & Brother.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

SemperFideles said:


> What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?
> 
> What about the Jews that were being enjoined in Hebrews?
> 
> I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians. The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.
> 
> Would I pray with Arminians? Maybe the better question is: Would I pray with a Christian?
> 
> These threads always go in the circle of treating living, breathing, complex Christians as if we can just segregate them cleanly according to theological points and, by our own authority, declare the faceless "Arminian" to be out of fellowship with us. I personally consider the question to be impious.
> 
> I'm not arguing for allowing a man into the pulpit to preach or distributing the Lord's Supper with eyes closed but we're talking about men who claim to trust in Christ for their salvation and the man asks to pray with us and we're going to stand back and say: "I don't pray with Arminians."
> 
> It strikes me as the Pharisee praying: "I thank God that I am not an Arminian...."
> 
> I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.
> 
> Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.



Well said dear brother!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just another observation this thread pushed me to consider - who did Jesus pray with?

*Matthew 14:23 *And when He had sent the multitudes away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray. Now when evening came, He was alone there.

*Matthew 19:13 *Then little children were brought to Him that He might put _His _hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.

*Matthew 26:36 *Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, "Sit here while I go and pray over there."

*Mark 1:35 *Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, He went out and departed to a solitary place; and there He prayed.

*Mark 6:46 *And when He had sent them away, He departed to the mountain to pray.

*Luke 5:16 *So He Himself _often _withdrew into the wilderness and prayed.

*Luke 6:12 *Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

*Luke 9:18 *And it happened, as He was alone praying, _that _His disciples joined Him, and He asked them, saying, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"

*Luke 9:28 *Now it came to pass, about eight days after these sayings, that He took Peter, John, and James and went up on the mountain to pray.

*Luke 11:1 *Now it came to pass, as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, _that _one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples."

*Luke 22:41 *And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and prayed,

*Matthew 27:46 *And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Based on the Gospels, Jesus prayed with 1) the disciples, 2) the little children and thier mothers, 3) Peter, James and John (on a few occasions), 4) by Himself, and 5) In front of all the world hanging on a cross.

Its interesting to me.


----------



## Arch2k

SemperFideles said:


> What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?


 
If they finally accepted *that* gospel, then he would have agreed with John:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.



SemperFideles said:


> I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians.


 
This begs the question. It assumes they have faith. I can’t see their faith to know if they have it or not, but I can see their profession, and it is a false one.



SemperFideles said:


> The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.


 
This has already been done. Council of Orange. Synod of Dort. How many do we need?



SemperFideles said:


> I personally consider the question to be impious.


The question is a practical one. “What is a valid profession of faith?” Everyone judges people’s professions. You are judging an Arminian’s profession to be valid. I am judging it to be invalid. I don’t see how it is impious, other than in the modern evangelyfish kind of way, where it is not godly to speak of God’s wrath, and the fact that most people will not be saved. William Ames the great puritan addresses this very question in his Marrow of Modern Divinity. Was he impious for even asking the question? (and he disagrees with me!) John Owen uses strong language in his “A Display of Arminianism.” Was he just being impious?



SemperFideles said:


> I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.


 
Well this all sounds very pious and flowery, but I ask you where do you see such a desire in your opponent to “finish the deed”? Does every discussion need to be lined with caveats about how a person’s motives are not “unloving” but merely a desire to spread the truth? Wouldn’t the belief that Arminians are lost not drive the reformed to evangelize them all the more? It should! 



SemperFideles said:


> Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.


 
Well the ad hominem arguments are really showing up now. Using terms like “spiritual jerk” and the like are hardly terms of *grace* and *humbleness* in this context. What other purpose could statements like that serve other than to anger your opponent? With that, I beg you to show anywhere in the thread where anyone has said they need to ask “20 questions” or have “every duck in a row” or anything of the sort.

I’m all for putting this one to bed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeff_Bartel said:


> If they finally accepted *that* gospel, then he would have agreed with John:
> 
> 1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question. It assumes they have faith. I can’t see their faith to know if they have it or not, but I can see their profession, and it is a false one.
> 
> 
> 
> This has already been done. Council of Orange. Synod of Dort. How many do we need?
> 
> 
> The question is a practical one. “What is a valid profession of faith?” Everyone judges people’s professions. You are judging an Arminian’s profession to be valid. I am judging it to be invalid. I don’t see how it is impious, other than in the modern evangelyfish kind of way, where it is not godly to speak of God’s wrath, and the fact that most people will not be saved. William Ames the great puritan addresses this very question in his Marrow of Modern Divinity. Was he impious for even asking the question? (and he disagrees with me!) John Owen uses strong language in his “A Display of Arminianism.” Was he just being impious?
> 
> 
> 
> Well this all sounds very pious and flowery, but I ask you where do you see such a desire in your opponent to “finish the deed”? Does every discussion need to be lined with caveats about how a person’s motives are not “unloving” but merely a desire to spread the truth? Wouldn’t the belief that Arminians are lost not drive the reformed to evangelize them all the more? It should!
> 
> 
> 
> Well the ad hominem arguments are really showing up now. Using terms like “spiritual jerk” and the like are hardly terms of *grace* and *humbleness* in this context. What other purpose could statements like that serve other than to anger your opponent? With that, I beg you to show anywhere in the thread where anyone has said they need to ask “20 questions” or have “every duck in a row” or anything of the sort.
> 
> I’m all for putting this one to bed.



Good suggestion Jeff.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeff_Bartel said:


> If they finally accepted *that* gospel, then he would have agreed with John:
> 
> 1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question. It assumes they have faith. I can’t see their faith to know if they have it or not, but I can see their profession, and it is a false one.
> 
> 
> 
> This has already been done. Council of Orange. Synod of Dort. How many do we need?
> 
> 
> The question is a practical one. “What is a valid profession of faith?” Everyone judges people’s professions. You are judging an Arminian’s profession to be valid. I am judging it to be invalid. I don’t see how it is impious, other than in the modern evangelyfish kind of way, where it is not godly to speak of God’s wrath, and the fact that most people will not be saved. William Ames the great puritan addresses this very question in his Marrow of Modern Divinity. Was he impious for even asking the question? (and he disagrees with me!) John Owen uses strong language in his “A Display of Arminianism.” Was he just being impious?
> 
> 
> 
> Well this all sounds very pious and flowery, but I ask you where do you see such a desire in your opponent to “finish the deed”? Does every discussion need to be lined with caveats about how a person’s motives are not “unloving” but merely a desire to spread the truth? Wouldn’t the belief that Arminians are lost not drive the reformed to evangelize them all the more? It should!
> 
> 
> 
> Well the ad hominem arguments are really showing up now. Using terms like “spiritual jerk” and the like are hardly terms of *grace* and *humbleness* in this context. What other purpose could statements like that serve other than to anger your opponent? With that, I beg you to show anywhere in the thread where anyone has said they need to ask “20 questions” or have “every duck in a row” or anything of the sort.
> 
> I’m all for putting this one to bed.


Way to parse a general call for treating people as people instead of syllogisms. This concern goes beyond a contest of wit where I'll win you over by logical arguments that give you comfort that you've found out the "Arminian" from the "Christian".

Regarding ad hominems: I guess if the shoe fits Jeff then wear it. Me thinks those that are uncomfortable with the idea of thinking they are considered jerks ought to take stock of it. Interesting it was aimed at nobody in particular. I hardly had time to read this thread in the past few days except to see that this had, as usual, descended into the inaninities of treating people as if they're fine points that can be parsed as described.

You always admit to lacking the ability conceptually to know who is elect but deny that ability practically in your statements about how you would interact with them. It's a distinction without a difference in my mind.

You continue to talk of "Arminians" as if you know who they are. Name please Jeff. I grow quite weary of your useless generalizations. I live in the real world with *Christians* struggling with doctrines that have polluted their souls. Give me the name of the man whose heart you know so infallibly so as to say "That man is not Christ's. He's not just weak but no Christian at all." Then, as a man supposedly guided only by the Scriptures, give me the Scripture that give *YOU* the right to pronounce that about that man.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SemperFideles said:


> Way to parse a general call for treating people as people instead of syllogisms. This concern goes beyond a contest of wit where I'll win you over by logical arguments that give you comfort that you've found out the "Arminian" from the "Christian".
> 
> Regarding ad hominems: I guess if the shoe fits Jeff then wear it. Me thinks those that are uncomfortable with the idea of thinking they are considered jerks ought to take stock of it. Interesting it was aimed at nobody in particular. I hardly had time to read this thread in the past few days except to see that this had, as usual, descended into the inaninities of treating people as if they're fine points that can be parsed as described.
> 
> You always admit to lacking the ability conceptually to know who is elect but deny that ability practically in your statements about how you would interact with them. It's a distinction without a difference in my mind.
> 
> You continue to talk of "Arminians" as if you know who they are. Name please Jeff. I grow quite weary of your useless generalizations. I live in the real world with *Christians* struggling with doctrines that have polluted their souls. Give me the name of the man whose heart you know so infallibly so as to say "That man is not Christ's. He's not just weak but no Christian at all." Then, as a man supposedly guided only by the Scriptures, give me the Scripture that give *YOU* the right to pronounce that about that man.



Rich,
I've got to tell you; I believe you are off base here. Neither, Jeff or anyone else in this thread anathematized anyone but those whom the reformation and Dordt condemned. All we have defended is the fact that theologically Arminianism is heresy and based upon that would not pray alongside anyone whom holds to that aberrant discipline. Would you pray alongside a Muslim? You make mention of Jeff acting as if he 'knows' who the Arminians are he speaks of; this is not what he is referencing. It is the theology, not the person. Theology defines. Look at the Jew, his theology defines his belief. Look at the JW; same thing. We don't necessarily have to name names.

It was as well made clear that this would not deter us from praying for all people in general; whatever their understanding of whatever. I can confidently say that anyone whom is Arminian, understands the doctrine and holds to it is in their sin and separated from Christ. Why is this so difficult? You will freely acknowledge that a JW is lost. 

The distinction as well was drawn in regards to error vs heresy. They are entirely two different things. Weak believers whom are in error, will not remain in that error; eventually the HS will guide them into all truth.

Hope this clears things up.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott,

Dordt is indeed a treasure...



> Finally, this Synod urges all fellow ministers in the gospel of Christ to deal with this teaching in a godly and reverent manner, in the academic institutions as well as in the churches; to do so, both in their speaking and writing, with a view to the glory of God's name, holiness of life, and the comfort of anxious souls; to think and also speak with Scripture according to the analogy of faith; and, finally, to refrain from all those ways of speaking which go beyond the bounds set for us by the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures and which could give impertinent sophists a just occasion to scoff at the teaching of the Reformed churches or even to bring false accusations against it.
> 
> May God's Son Jesus Christ, who sits at the right hand of God and gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, lead to the truth those who err, silence the mouths of those who lay false accusations against sound teaching, and equip faithful ministers of his Word with a spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all they say may be to the glory of God and the building up of their hearers. Amen


----------



## Scott Bushey

SemperFideles said:


> Scott,
> 
> Dordt is indeed a treasure...



I agree; no one in this thread has acted contrary to the citation you're providing. It's not like Dordt would handle the heresy any different than we are in this thread...........


----------

